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.
Loss of habitat is the biggest problem facing Mother Nature.
Anybody here personally involved in preserving or restoring habitat? That could include anything from planting butterfly & bee friendly flowers in your garden to buying tracts of land in the boonies, volunteering for clean up projects at forest preserves or parks or at least contributing to organizations like Ducks Unlimited, etc.
Loss of habitat is the biggest problem facing Mother Nature.
Anybody here personally involved in preserving or restoring habitat? That could include anything from planting butterfly & bee friendly flowers in your garden to buying tracts of land in the boonies, volunteering for clean up projects at forest preserves or parks or at least contributing to organizations like Ducks Unlimited, etc.
Nope... Have to take every inch of ground to grow corn for ethanol or put a solar farm on it!!!!!**** on the critters we need the energy!!!
Judging by the conspicuous lack of activity on this thread, we can conclude that efforts to Save the Planet by members here are limited to using expensive PV installations to power their big screen TVs and to avoiding plastic shopping bags.
Isn't anybody here at least leaving a pile of rocks undisturbed on their property as habitat for snakes? That's pretty easy and doesn't require any effort. It would still leave plenty of time for you to worry & wring your hands over Global Warming.
I have always supported preservation of habitat and careful conservation of wild lands and always will. I feel its a lot more effective to focus on large scale land management efforts (such as contributing to The Nature Conservancy, support parks, wilderness areas, international restoration efforts for example). Many so-called "local" efforts people can be convinced to make are not very useful in the grand scheme of things. Maybe planting butterfly-friendly flowers in your yard won't hurt much and make you feel good, but it has to be done intelligently. There are non-native invasive butterflies that outcompete native species. Non-native ornamental plants can spread to habitats where they don't belong. By planting non-native flowers the gardener may be hurting the natives in several ways. OK, maybe not the best example, but one to consider. Think about all those so-called "wildflower seed mixes...just scatter and grow". Many contain terribly invasive species and the vendors don't know or care as long as the customer feels good.
Its all about education and understanding. Without those the best intentions can go very very wrong.
Its all about education and understanding. Without those the best intentions can go very very wrong.
Very true. Many people feel some need to do something but aren't well informed and can actually hurt things.
Your thoughts on native species is well taken: native bugs & birds have evolved to live on native plants. Bringing in non-natives fouls up the balance.
It's true individual activities may be lost as token events, but even a trip of a thousand miles starts with a single step as Confucius said. Even a small pile of rocks for a few garter snakes or leaving the clover grow in your lawn for the bumble bees helps at least a little bit for your location.
In regards donations to organizations, at least Nature Conservancy does buy up tracts of land for preservation. Hunting/Fishing organizations (EG- Ducks Unlimited) do more for restoring & preserving habitat than all the other TreeHugger types (Audubon Soc etc) combined. Those are typical charities: they only put 4% of receipts into the activity they're supposed to do. The rest is for "fundraising activities" ie-salaries for the overpaid executive staffs.
Very true. Many people feel some need to do something but aren't well informed and can actually hurt things.
Your thoughts on native species is well taken: native bugs & birds have evolved to live on native plants. Bringing in non-natives fouls up the balance.
It's true individual activities may be lost as token events, but even a trip of a thousand miles starts with a single step as Confucius said. Even a small pile of rocks for a few garter snakes or leaving the clover grow in your lawn for the bumble bees helps at least a little bit for your location.
In regards donations to organizations, at least Nature Conservancy does buy up tracts of land for preservation. Hunting/Fishing organizations (EG- Ducks Unlimited) do more for restoring & preserving habitat than all the other TreeHugger types (Audubon Soc etc) combined. Those are typical charities: they only put 4% of receipts into the activity they're supposed to do. The rest is for "fundraising activities" ie-salaries for the overpaid executive staffs.
There are hundreds of environmental organizations that spout all sorts of preservation/conservation rhetoric while competing for your dollar. I steer away from the ones who turn their causes into political platforms instead of sticking to their mandates. One of many reasons I feel TNC is more effective is because they choose to leave the pontificating to others and put the money where it needs to go...secure the land by paying market price for it or create protections through landowner agreements and then put it in the hands of the most knowledgeable LOCAL entity. They seem to be more effective at getting local buy-in instead of alienating the very people who make the reserves viable. There are ways to find out just how much of a donated dollar is put toward the actual mission and how much is spent on "overhead" and fundraising. It is a real eye opener.
all the other TreeHugger types (Audubon Soc etc) combined. Those are typical charities: they only put 4% of receipts into the activity they're supposed to do. The rest is for "fundraising activities" ie-salaries for the overpaid executive staffs.
This is just a deliberate lie. The Audubon Society for example spends 82.5% on program work according to Charity Navigator.
We bought 5+ acres that we have left untouched and remain as wildlife habitat. We transplant trees, use our own bags for shopping, and use as little electricity as possible.
Hope that's conspicuous enough activity for you. We do have a large screen TV, which I feel as though I must apologize to you for, but please don't worry and wring your hands about it.
This is just a deliberate lie. The Audubon Society for example spends 82.5% on program work according to Charity Navigator.
My apologies to the Audubon Soc. They were the first name that popped into my head as an example. When I was interested in contributing to them a few yrs ago, I realized they were another one using "GW" as an advertising point. Conclusion: unscientific & unworthy of my attention. They claim they turn 82% of revenue back into their stated goal, but it doesn't state what it's actually spent on. I don't consider salaries as legitimate expenses. Buying land is.
edit: checked the numbers: according to your site, program expense : income only 65% --- $75M/$115M
I'll stand by my contention that hunting/fishing organizations do more to preserve wild life & lands than the others.
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.
