THE ENVIRONMENT

The United States Forest Service (USFS) is under fire from both fiscal conservatives and liberal environmentalists - two groups not often on the same side of issues. Fiscal conservatives decry the agency´s spendthrift ways and money-losing programs. Environmentalists claim that its logging, mining and grazing programs damage the natural world. Both groups are correct. Despite bipartisan criticism of current national forest management, year after year passes with no changes made to failed USFS programs. To improve the economic performance and the ecological conditions of public forests, Congress must move beyond its interminable debate and take an entirely new direction - one which builds on the successful forest manag-ment experiments under way in state forests.

State Forests Are Economically Healthier than Federal Forests. Despite the fact that the USFS loses money on all of its programs, it continues to lobby for more money to manage and expand national forests. Logging is the most visible and criticized of its wasteful efforts, but it is not the biggest money loser. That distinction goes to recreation. Hikers, birders, campers and environmentalists in general, who decry money-losing timber programs, pay even less of their own way than do loggers. Researchers at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, found that in Forest Service Region 1 in 1988, while the timber program made more then $5 million, the recreation program lost almost $15 million. Neither program has made money since then. In 1992 the Region 1 timber program lost almost $19 million, while recreation lost $23.4 million (25 percent more than logging and five times more than the grazing program). Nationally, the figures are even worse. In 1997 the USFS lost $88 million on its timber program, while its recreation program lost $162 million.

In contrast, state and county forests typically make money. For instance, from 1988-92, while state forests in Montana made $13.3 million, Montana´s 10 national forests lost a combined $42 million. State forests yielded an average of $2.16 for every dollar spent, while federal forests lost between $.09 and $.73 for every dollar spent with only one federal forest showing a net revenue of $1.30 for every dollar spent. Most of these losses were due to the much higher management costs associated with federal forests. While the average wages were comparable on state and federal forests, $15.30 versus $15.63 per hour, respectively, federal bureaucrats required 11.6 hours per 1,000 board feet harvested vs. 4.5 hours for state forest managers.

The figures were similar when county forests in Minnesota were compared to federal forests located in the same region. Forests in St. Louis County in northeastern Minnesota brought in $20.75 on average per thousand board feet from 1990 through 1993. The Superior National Forest in the same region averaged revenues of $18.29 over the same period. While revenues were comparable, the management costs were not. County land department forests had an average cost of $12.31 per thousand board feet while the Superior National Forest´s management costs averaged $34.12. So while county forests turned a profit, federal forests lost money.

State Forests Are Environmentally Healthier than Federal Forests. State forests don´t just do better economically, however. The environment benefits from state management as well. Teams of experts from federal and state agencies, environmental organizations and the timber industry in both Montana and Minnesota were commissioned to compare the environmental effects of management practices carried out on state and federal forests. The sets of experts came to similar conclusions: state foresters were better than federal forest managers at protecting watersheds and waterways from the impacts of logging and other activities.

In Montana the experts found:

• 99 percent of the watersheds in state forests were protected from all impacts from logging, compared to 92 percent of watersheds in federal forests.

• All of the impacts on state forest watersheds were minor and temporary, whereas 3 percent of the impacts on federal forests fell into the categories of "minor but long-lasting," "serious and long-lasting" or "serious but temporary."

In Minnesota the results were just as clear:

• At 90 percent, county lands had the highest compliance rate with "best management practices" for protecting water quality.

• Federal forests had a slightly lower compliance rate at 87 percent.

In Montana, state forests also had better timber productivity, or higher annual growth rates, than federal forests. Federal foresters practice even-aged management by which all of the trees replanted in an area are the same species and age. They also use clear-cutting to manage forests. State foresters make greater use of uneven-aged, selective timber harvests and selective thinning through logging and controlled burns. The results are stark. From 1988-92, among the national forests in Montana, Lolo National Forest had the highest average annual growth rate at 58 percent. This was more than eight percent lower than state forests in the Western Region [see the figure]. And in Montana´s Southwest-Central region, while state forests averaged 67 percent of their productive potential, the Gallatin National Forest had a negative growth rate - more trees were dead or dying than growing.

Since productive forests act as filters against water pollution and buffers against landslides, the better water quality and superior timber management practices in state forests should increase their biological productivity - in other words, the biodiversity in state forests should be greater than in federal forests - so wildlife benefits from state management as well.

Let the States Improve Forest Management. One way to improve public forest management would be for Congress to allow any state or county that has demonstrated superior economic and environmental performance to take over the management of the national forests within their state. Congress should give fixed but declining block grants to the participating states to help them manage the forests during a transition period. All revenues or money leftover from the grants at the end of each year should remain with the state or county forestry agency. The number of states enrolled in the program should be limited only by their ability to demonstrate superior economic and environmental performance, and enrollment should remain open.

In each state undertaking such control, the program should be allowed to run for several years so state and county foresters could counteract the effects of years of federal mismanagement. At the end of that time, states and counties that had improved economic and environmental performance should be granted the forests outright and federal payments should end. If forests had not improved, they could be returned to federal management and new management experiments implemented. This proposal should improve the environmental and economic performance of all public forests. Why? Because state and county foresters not currently outperforming their areas´ national forests would gain authority and more revenue by improving their forests´ performance. USFS managers, faced with a loss of revenues and authority, would have to improve performance to maintain control of the remaining federal forests.

Conclusion. Some states have shown that the public can have the best of both worlds: forests that are profitable and protected. If Congress allowed states to manage the federal forests within their borders, wildlife and U.S. taxpayers would benefit.

This Brief Analysis was prepared by NCPA policy analyst Sterling Burnett.

TUCSON, ARIZ. -- Many an imagination has been enchanted by visions of wild America reconstructed by writers and painters of old.
A few imaginative people, such as University of Arizona geosciences Professor Emeritus Paul S. Martin, go beyond this by encouraging a restocking of modern-day plains with animals of the past. Martin envisions reserves with buffalo roaming, deer and antelope playing, elephants browsing.

Elephants browsing?

This might not sound like the range that greeted Lewis and Clark. But it does represent the wilderness of 13,000 years ago that confronted the earliest settlers into North America, Martin points out. And he would like to see pockets of modern America that reflect the pachyderm presence once again.
Martin will be talking about his vision on June 26 during the 25th anniversary celebration of the discovery of Mammoth Site in Hot Springs, S.D. The site hosts a museum where the100,000 visitors each year can see the continuing excavation as well as some results of the effort -- including some complete skeletons of the roughly 50 mammoths preserved when they fell into a slippery sinkhole 26,000 years ago.
"I want to do honor to my country by appreciating its true nature," Martin said. "We´ve been misled into thinking this is the home of the deer and the buffalo and the moose. That´s true in historical time but in evolutionary time this land is the home of elephants, camels, horses and ground sloths."
In a paper called "Bring Back the Elephants," published in the spring issue of Wild Earth, Martin and co-author David A. Burney note that the disappearance of North American elephants about 13,000 years ago during the late Pleistocene occurred almost yesterday in the geological time frame.

"As a result of the late Pleistocene extinctions we live in a continent of ghosts, their prehistoric presence hinted at by sweet-tasting bean pods of mesquite, honey locusts and monkey ear. Such fruits are the bait evolved to attract native animals that served a seed dispersers," they wrote in Wild Earth. "African and Asian elephants are the only members of the order of Proboscidea that were not lost in the megafaunal crisis of the late Pleistocene."

Seven species of Proboscidea, including wooly mammoths, dwarf mammoths and mastadons, suddenly died off during this crisis. After a million years or more of successful existence, they faded into evolutionary history in perhaps a few hundred years, evidence indicates. What´s more, the rapid cycle of extinctions occurred just as the Clovis people were settling North America on a southward journey that began at the Bering Straight, a now-flooded peninsula that connected Alaska and Siberia.
Martin considers the timing more than coincidence. He is one of the main proponents of the theory that humans were the catalysts for the sudden wave of extinctions of large North American mammals. Although there is no smoking gun to prove the connection, there are spear tips found in fossil mammoths. For instance, a mammoth skeleton unearthed in Naco, Ariz., contained eight spear points identified as having Clovis origin.

"This one got away. There were only these beautiful Clovis points that indicated it had been hunted and speared but not butchered and cooked," Martin explained. Part of the skeleton is now on display in the Arizona State Museum located on the UA campus in Tucson.

Thanks to cave paintings in Europe by ancient artists, scientists know what mammoths looked like, with long fur making them appear superficially different than the elephants that have so far survived into modern times.
Their behavior, too, probably differed only superficially from that of modern elephants, which are considered "super keystone species" by some conservation biologists because of their ability to transform the environment. Elephants dismantle trees, turning forest into the savannah that can support a variety of large grazing mammals and their predators.

Martin suspects that the disappearance of the North American elephants, actively hunted by our ancestors, could have altered the environment enough to precipitate the extinction of other range animals. Along with the late Pleistocene elephants, dozens of other large mammal species disappeared from North America at that time, including ground sloths, horses, the saber-tooth tiger and the dire wolf.

Gray wolves -- remnants who survived the Pleistocene but were recently driven to near extinction in the United States by ranchers and farmers -- are being reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. Scientists abroad are repopulating an area of Siberia dubbed Pleistocene Park with horses, musk ox and bison. Reintroducing elephants into North America could be the next step in efforts to restore the wilderness of old.

"If we want the ´super keystone species,´ second only to our own in their capability for altering habitats and faunas, we should start with the restoration of living proboscideans -- with African and Asian elephants," Martin states.

And you thought the Endangered Species Act was bad! Just wait until you hear what your government has in store for you now. How does the U.S. Invasive Species Super Structure sound? Whoever thought this one up must be from outer space!

Last May, when President Clinton had other important issues on his mind, he issued a draft Presidential Executive Order that would make cows and corn "Invasive Alien Species." If Clinton gets his way, or perhaps his successor Al Gore, any freedoms the feds could not trample with the Endangered Species Act they may annihilate with the Invasive Alien Species Council. Only, instead of saving plants and animals they plan on eradicating them. If your place was somehow passed over by the feds in protecting species, you surely won´t be missed when they come to exterminate them. We warn you, this story is NOT going to leave you with a warm and fuzzy feeling. This is one alien sighting you had better take seriously.

Aliens That Go Moo

Like a lot of other green nonsense, the drivel that follows originated at the UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. That confab came up with six fundamental causes of biodiversity loss. Naturally, things like overpopulation, capitalism, inequity in land ownership and lack of adequate education made the hit list. But so too was "the introduction of exotic species associated with agriculture, forestry and fisheries." Environmentalists refer to these species as "human induced disturbers of ecosystems." Along with other bad things in our society, they blame our European forefathers who came to this country sowing seeds of destruction.

If the UN was going to launch an offensive against star thistle, knapweed, leafy spurge, wild pigs, rats and kudzu perhaps this could be a movement private property owners could get behind. But it goes much farther than that. According to Tom McDonnell of the ASCI, most international cooperation on alien species falls under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Article 8 of that document suggests there is overwhelming evidence of the negative effects of alien plant and animal species at both the local an global level. "Such introductions can lead to severe disruption of ecological communities." To prevent such a tragedy the UN urged countries to: "prevent the introduction, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species." In case you missed it the UN is attempting to outlaw cows, pigs and sheep on this continent!

The UN´s Global Biodiversity Assessment, which the U.S. helped write, clearly considers livestock on this continent an invasive alien species. We are quoting now from that document: "The massive changes in species composition of temperate grasslands in Australia, South America and Western North America (that´s us folks) was a result of the introduction of ungulates which have destroyed native plant communities." Ungulates, by the way, are animals with hooves.

In the spirit of the UN Conference, Clinton drafted an Order to eliminate or minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts of invasive alien species. His Executive Order defines alien species, calls for a plan to rid our lands of them and establishes national and regional councils to carry out his mandate.

Whether it was planned that way or not, most crop and animal species in North America clearly fall within the definition of "alien species." And it does not matter if those alien species were introduced on purpose or accidentally. According to the draft of Clinton´s Executive Order an "invasive species is one that does or COULD HARM the economy, ecology or human health of the United States."

Tobacco COULD HARM the human health, a cow COULD HARM the ecology and biotech crops COULD HARM the economy. I think you get the picture. The problem is that most human dietary needs are met by species considered by this Administration as "invasive alien species."

The Weed Team

According to UN documents, introducing new species is bad because they displace or destroy indigenous species, expose the species to new pathogens, pollute the gene pool and disrupt the natural energy cycle. It is estimated that 20% of the vertebrates thought to be in danger of extinction are threatened in some way by invasive alien species. Many scientists feel that these alien species must be eliminated because they are systematically destroying habitat and are exploiting natural ecosystems. President Clinton must agree because the Executive Order that he signed states that "federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, and in cooperation with states, tribes and local governments prevent the introduction and spread of invasive alien species into ecosystems and control them."

We are talking about a new governmental effort to develop techniques to restore ecosystems to their natural state in order to "maintain biodiversity for the good of society, the culture, the economy and the environment." To implement the plan Clinton issued an organizational chart of the "Proposed US Alien Invasive Species Super Structure." At the top of the chart is the National Invasive Alien Species Council. It will consist, but is not limited to one member from the Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, State, Transportation, Treasury Departments and the EPA. It will be co chaired by the secretaries of Ag, Commerce and the Interior.

Below that group on the chart are sub-groups such as the Injurious Wildlife Task Force and the National Center for Biological Invasions. Here´s where it gets interesting. The work on the ground will be done by Regional Councils which include private conservation groups, The Nature Conservancy and the appropriate federal agency. Please note that agricultural interests, universities and private landowners are excluded from the administrative level that includes the Nature Conservancy and conservation groups. We assume that ranchers and farmers might be allowed to participate in groups lower on the organizational chart. Perhaps as members of an "Interagency Weed Team."

Within 18 months from last May, President Clinton´s Order is supposed to have a National Alien Species Management Plan in place. This management plan will be charged with eradicating infestations, reducing their populations, changing human activities that may be spreading alien species, prevent their spread from infected areas and conduct restoration activities. They shall also have in place a plan that measures the outcome of such activities.

This Could Take Some Time

So, how big a job does the National Invasive Alien Council have in front of it? In most ecosystems the number of alien plant and animal species is unknown. And that will be part of the task, to identify them. We do know that invasive species are found everywhere in the world except Antarctica. They are even found in nature preserves designed to keep them out, which should indicate the daunting task ahead. Generally, warm desert and semi-arid places have fewer invasives. In Australia and New Zealand there are estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000 native species of plants and about 1,500 to 2,000 non-natives. Britain has 49 mammalian species and 21 of these are alien to the country. In southern Georgia there are 26 native plant species and 54 non-natives growing in the same area. It would appear Georgia might be a candidate for the equivalent of a toxic super fund site for alien species.

It will take a long time to eradicate the aliens. On an island near Hawaii rabbits were introduced in 1903 as a source of meat. Within 29 years the number of plant species had fallen from 20 to 4. After the extermination of the rabbits it took 38 years to get the number of species back up to 16. In other words, this is the type of long term, expensive project that bureaucrats and green groups love.

A Can Of Invasive Alien Worms

Within 36 months of Clinton´s Executive Order the Invasive Species Council must be implementing measures to fix the "problem." These measures must control the species in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner. The management plan will include ways to eradicate some species which are threatening ecosystems and habitats of endangered species. This would appear to give the government broad latitude in coming on your ranch to inventory, sample, treat and monitor invasive species. We can only guess what possibilities await, but the UN blueprint provides some clues. We quote: "In most cases invasives reduce local diversity or abundance of a given population, or alter community structure. Removal of these invasives is often accompanied by recovery."

Will cows be removed from some ecosystems because they are an alien species destroying natives? Will farmers have to change their planting patterns? We are opening a can of worms here, probably a can of invasive alien worms.

The President´s Order will impact any rancher or farmer who is receiving any federal aid or participates in federal programs because livestock and crops are not excluded. It could impact ranchers participating in a grazing program such as CRP. The Invasive Species Council will also be given broad latitude in using tax policies and other incentives to foster land use practices that benefit native species and eradicate alien ones. Alien species easements as well as other arrangements between conservation groups and private property owners could be in the offing.

The tools in their management arsenal include: establish parks and reserves to protect and regulate sensitive habitats; form seed banks and microbial culture collections to maintain germ plasm; foster agricultural practices that protect soil biota; implement a wide range of land use planning and zoning tools in urban and rural areas; develop an emergency response strategy for the introduction of any new invasive alien species; and institute associated laws, policies and administrative procedures to facilitate these measures.

Although the bureaucrats must take into consideration the economic impact of their actions, according to Tom McDonnell, "nothing in this document excludes intrinsic and environmental values from being given greater consideration than economic values in such decisions."

That´s The Theory Anyway

Radical environmentalists have long sought a way to control or regulate new biotech products, which they generally despise. With this Executive Order it now looks that they have found that tool. Despite the fact that the potential for filling hungry mouths is enhanced by the technology, the UN feels that "loss of species and habitat diversity as a result of environmental introductions of genetically modified organisms is THEORETICALLY possible." (Emphasis ours) What they are concerned about is a loss of unique germ plasm, genetic diversity as in the case of endangered species, or a pollution of the gene pool.

This Will Be Interesting

We wonder how the Council will respond to an oil spill when the genetically modified organisms they so despise are used to clean it up. What will they do if a Kangaroo Rat is found to be an alien invasive species in an ecosystem far from a preserve? Will they start killing the rats they are protecting elsewhere? After a fire will they seed the hills with fast growing alien species or slower growing native ones? This Presidential Order dealing with invasive alien species has the potential to make the Endangered Species Act look reasonable by comparison. We can only suppose that since, by definition, ranchers and farmers are "alien invasive species" that they too must be eradicated. Or at least controlled. This action by President Clinton could go a long way towards accomplishing that.

Global warming may not be caused by humanity´s fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun.
Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate.
The evidence for an increasingly energetic Sun comes from a new analysis of the magnetic field between the planets, carried out by scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford, UK.
The scientists produce evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%.
Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901.
Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown.

Not our fault?

The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming.
He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth´s atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says.
Professor Parker suggests that the Sun´s increased activity caused the Earth´s global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans.
Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Humanity´s burning of fossil fuels may therefore not be the cause of global warming.

Perilous plans

Professor Parker adds that that more research must be done about the Sun´s role in global warming before drastic action is taken here on Earth.
"It is essential to check to what extent the facts support these conclusions before embarking on drastic, perilous and perhaps misguided plans for global action," he says.
Measurements of the magnetic field are not the only evidence for the Sun´s variable influence on the Earth. The planet went through a "little ice age" during the 17th Century, at a time when very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun.
And the so-called "medieval maximum" was a period of warmer than average global weather in the 12th Century. Astronomers believe that the Sun was slightly brighter at that time.

Chicken Little was a piker compared to green groups who are sounding the alarm that the end of the world has come. Just listen to these recent prognostications:

• The Sierra Club says that scientists of all nations say we are officially in the middle of the Sixth Great Extinction. "Not since a meteorite slammed into the earth 65 million years ago have so many species become extinct so quickly. This alarming decline in species is caused by the ongoing destruction, degradation and fragmentation of natural habitats both here in the U.S. and across the world. Seven out of ten biologists believe the world is now in the midst of the fastest mass extinction of living things in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet."
• According to the National Wildlife Federation, "approximately 25% of the world´s mammals and 11% of its birds are at significant risk of extinction. Some estimate that two-thirds of all species may disappear by the end of this century."
• "25% of drugs prescribed in the United States contain chemical compounds derived from wild species," says the Sierra Club. "The cure for AIDS or cancer may be hidden in the vast tracts of still unexplored rainforests. By destroying forests today we are limiting our options for treating illnesses in the future."
• According to the World Wildlife Federation, "Many nonhuman species face decline or total extermination. We destroyed 30 percent of the natural world between 1970 and 1995. Roughly 50,000 species vanish every year."

 The Canary Is Just Fine, Thank You

And on and on and on. Enough already! You get the idea. The theory is that we are like the canary in the mine shaft: if it dies we all do. We simply can´t continue to destroy valuable habitat with industrial and agricultural pollutants because by poisoning other species we are also imperiling our own lives.

The only problem with the green theory is that it is based on false assumptions.

Who says so? A former Greenpeace member, 36-year-old Danish political scientist and professor of statistics, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist. Writer Nicholas Wade did a story in the New York Times about the book titled, "Surprise! The Earth May Be Okay After All." According to the Times, Lomborg´s in-depth analysis is a substantial work with almost 3,000 footnotes in which he rebuffs statements made by many environmental organizations. In the book Lomborg "refers to the persistently gloomy fare from these groups as the Litany, a collection of statements that he argues are exaggerations or outright myths."

Here are a few quotes from the New York Times article written by Wade:

• "The Skeptical Environmentalist portrays several other elements of the Litany as little more than urban myths. One is the prediction that the world´s forests and a large number of species are headed for catastrophe. Lomborg believes that forest loss has been less serious than is often described . . . only 20% since the dawn of agriculture, not 67% as stated by the World Wildlife fund."
• "He looked at the Worldwatch Institute World Report in 1998 which said, "The world´s forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." But according to Lomborg, "The longest data series of annual figures available from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization shows that global forest cover has increased, to 30.89% in 1994 from 30.404% in 1950."
• Lomborg believes that the International Panel on Climate Change exaggerates the effect of greenhouse gases.
• "The often quoted figure that 40,000 species are lost every year comes from a 1979 article by Norman Myers, an ecologist at Oxford University. But this figure Lomborg says, was not based on evidence but on Myers conjecture that 1 million species might be lost from 1975 to 2000 which works out to be 40,000 species per year. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature which maintains the Red Book of Endangered Species concluded in 1992 that the extinction figures for mammals and birds were "very small" and the total extinction rate, assuming 30 million species, was probably 2,300 species a year."

The greens will no doubt try to discredit Lomborg but he´s ready: "I´m a left-wing guy and a vegetarian because I don´t want to kill animals . . . you can´t play the "he´s right wing so he´s wrong argument."

Green, As In Cash

The news on the environment as reported by green groups is always bad. Global warming, arsenic in our water, disappearing species and forests, polluted oceans and ecosystems . . . there´s no end to what Lomborg calls "The Litany" for a very simple reason: This is business. Big business. Causes are cash to the greens.

The Sierra Club has NOT been a nonprofit organization for years. The Nature Conservancy owns five million acres, making it one of largest non-government landowners in U.S. In 1998 the Conservancy raised $744 million which included $130 million in securities income. Total transactions for 1998 totaled $1.36 billion, including $153 million in government contracts. 480 Nature Conservancy employees had salaries of over $50,000 in 1998. They aren´t called GREEN groups for nothing!

According to an article in Forbes called "Ego-Pragmatists," The Nature Conservancy has quite a nice little business doing what it doesn´t want the rest of us to do. According to Forbes, Exxon Mobil will drill gas wells on a 2,263-acre preserve in Texas City, Texas that is only one of two places in the world where the endangered Atwater prairie chicken is found. Guess who owns the preserve? The Nature Conservancy. Says Forbes, "The Nature Conservancy acquired the land as a donation from Mobil and has reaped $5 million from the company´s wells already there."

According to Forbes, "A couple of years ago the Conservancy paid International Paper $35 million for 185,000 acres on the St. John River in Maine to save it from other timber companies. It then contracted with a logger to log 75% of the land. The deal generated one million a year for the Conservancy.

The Conservancy also owns or has easements on 50,000 acres on Virginia´s Eastern Shore and is erecting five houses that will sell for $330,000 each! Evidently when green groups refer to "appropriate human use" it means anything done by them. It also may explain why it´s terrible when a cow poops in a stream but beautiful when a buffalo on a nature preserve does it. In the Forbes article, Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity said, "I used to say the only things not allowed on Nature Conservancy reserves were mining and slavery, and I wasn´t sure about the latter. Now I may have to withdraw the former as well."

Don´t be surprised several years from now when The Nature Conservancy does things on all these conservation easements they are busy acquiring that the original owner would have never been allowed to do.

So you see, the green groups can´t afford to run out of causes because that´s what pays their salaries. To get gullible folks to whip out their checkbooks they need a never ending source of causes. And if they run out of land to "save" there is always the ocean. The Ocean Conservancy has a $15 million dollar budget with which it is trying to lock up parts of the sea. Says their President: "It´s time to begin applying to the oceans the same conservation ethic that has saved so much land from the destructive hand of humankind." Next I suppose they´ll be trying to save outer space.

A Holy War

Environmental organizations raise three and a half BILLION dollars every year and much of it is spent on a massive public-relations and fund raising effort. Some of the money is spent trying to elect politicians who will play along. The Sierra Club Political Committee contends that their goal is to elect Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are pro-environment, but in the 2000 election the Sierra Club endorsed all Democrats for the Senate except Jeffords, the then "Republican" who has since metamorphosed into an "Independent Senator."

All this money buys the green groups a seat at the negotiating table. That´s how the World Wildlife Fund ended up helping draft the Group of Eight Communique. The Nature Conservancy is a favorite of the Bush Administration because, like it, The Conservancy did not endorse the Kyoto Protocol. The $1.6 million government grant it got to study issues raised by the Kyoto Protocol was probably in no way related.

The greenies have even engaged the help of a higher power. Currently the Sierra Club is courting what they call the "Christian-environmentalist movement" which includes groups like Christians Caring for Creation; Religious Campaign for Forest Conservation; The Interfaith Global Warming Task Force (a project of the National Council of Churches, The Council on the Environment and Jewish Life); and Moses (Metropolitan Organizing Strategy and Enabling Strength) founded by Catholic activists and joined by Presbyterian, Anglican and Baptist churches.

That explains why we now see pastors, preachers and Jewish holy men meeting with legislatures to discuss a ban on logging on public lands or Catholic priests blessing newly installed solar panels and wind turbines in Wyandotte, Michigan. Since 1998 the Maine chapter of the Sierra Club and the Maine Council of Churches "have worked as partners in the spirituality and earth stewardship program focusing on watershed and global warming issues." According to the Sierra Club, Susan Sargeant is a grass-roots organizer and vice-chair of the Maine chapter who laughs as she describes the beginning of a partnership between her chapter and the Maine Council of Churches. "Since I´m an activist and organizer, I have at the top of my to-do list: find a coalition. But it´s become so much more than that. Our meetings are celebrations held in a different watershed each season. All these environmentalists get together and talk about what´s happening in their watershed and perform rituals at the same time. There´s a Celtic harpist who plays nature and spiritual songs. It´s a far cry from a regular meeting."

Anne Woiwode, is Director of the Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club and works with church groups on sprawl issues. She says, "It´s amazing how changing the messenger can change how the message is received." The greenies have even drafted the women´s movement in their war. One ally is Women´s Voice In The Environment, a group that organizes hikes, lobbying trips and "eco-spirit workshops."

To brainwash the next generation of check writing supporters the greenies established The Earth Day Network, a consortium of green groups that recommends that students join Earth First!, best known for their eco-terrorist tactics. If you don´t think your children are bombarded with green propaganda in school read their textbooks, or their letters to Congressmen. Ten percent of students may not know George Washington was their first president but they can tell you that our forests are vanishing, despite the fact that 70% of the forests that were here when Columbus landed are still here! But facts don´t matter. This is a holy war!

Shame On Us

The media is a willing co-conspirator says Lomborg who, according to the New York Times, "chides journalists, saying they uncritically spread the Litany, and he accuses the public of an unfounded readiness to believe the worst. The Litany has pervaded the debate so deeply and so long that blatantly false claims can be made again and again, without any references, and yet still be believed."

Typical is the current debate over drilling in Alaska´s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You may know that the U.S. imported 37% of its oil in the 70´s and 57% today. But did you know that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates there is enough oil in the Arctic Refuge to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 to 30 years? Did you know that Bush´s proposal would permit drilling on only 2,000 acres of the ANWR, or about one hundredth of one percent of the entire refuge? Of course you didn´t know that; the left-leaning media won´t tell you.

What boggles the mind is that funding for green groups often comes from foundations established by founders of the very companies the greenies seek to destroy. While they may get money from capitalists and engage in capitalism, in their hearts the greens are socialists who believe in central planning and environmentally correct economic development that is fairly distributed. "Socioeconomic and political factors like inequities in wealth and land ownership also play key roles in the loss of habitat," says the Sierra Club. "Because Americans consume so much more energy, food and raw materials than our counterparts in other developed countries, our impact on our environment is proportionally much greater. As a result, wildlife and wild places in the U.S. are being pushed to the brink of extinction."

Yes, the flower children of the sixties have grown up but their protest signs still decry the greedy practitioners of the Western lifestyle. Or what the Sierra Club refers to as "the social and political and economic institutions of the capitalist system."

Obviously they don´t like us very much. Especially you, because you own land and are employed in "the resource extraction industry." Let´s face it, they need an enemy to fight so they can continue to replenish their war chest and "TAG," you are it.

In a letter to the Nature Conservancy congratulating the group on its 50th anniversary President Bush wrote, "The Nature Conservancy´s accomplishments over the last five decades are remarkable."

No kidding! Surely the founders back in 1951, who were then known as The Ecologist Union, could not have envisioned what their organization would one day become. Fifty years later The Nature Conservancy . . .

• Averages one land purchase per day in the United States.
• Has acquired more than 12 million acres of land in the U.S. that is organized into more than 1,400 preserves.
• Has been called "the largest real estate developer in America."
• Has become the richest of all green groups. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, TNC reported total revenue and other support of $786.8 million.
• Has eight regional offices, along with 50 state chapter offices and a national headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.
• Boasts a membership of 1,029,012 people who pay at least $25 to join.
• Earned $60 million from government awards, $14 million from private contracts and $161 million from investment income in fiscal year 2000. It also received gifts of land worth $90 million. This is all in addition to its dues revenue.
• Employs 3,000 people.
• Doubled its membership and quintupled its revenues during the 1990´s. Today, The Nature Conservancy is the 10th largest nonprofit institution in America.

 A Change In Plans

For awhile there it looked like The Nature Conservancy had plans to buy up all the land in this country. But they realized that even they didn´t have quite that much money. Besides, the more land they bought the more they had to pay to take care of it. According to writer Tom Knudson, "from 1990 to 2000, administrative overhead at the Conservancy jumped from $14.8 million to $40.2 million -- up 170 percent. Its fund-raising bill, which includes membership solicitations, went from $8.8 million to $45.7 million, up 420 percent."

If The Nature Conservancy wants to brag half a century from now about the same kind of growth it achieved in its first fifty years, then they had to change their business model. This was clear to TNC´s new president Steve McCormick, a lawyer and former head of the California arm of TNC. While he ran the Nature Conservancy in California, McCormick changed that group´s focus from trying to buy up all the land to merely being able to control it. His first year at the national organization has been spent trying to instill that same philosophy.

McCormick has said that "nature preserves are not sufficient to heal an ailing planet. Our mission speaks to preserving biological diversity, not creating nature preserves. Land acquisition alone will not enable us to work at the scale we have to work at." To McCormick the problem was clear: Almost half of the group´s income was going toward taking care of properties they already owned, and as they purchased more land there would be less and less money left over to satiate their desire for more real estate. "Custodial maintenance is an Achilles´ heel for us," McCormick said.

McCormick now wants to shed some Nature Conservancy property by selling it or gifting it so the group can turn their efforts to protecting much larger regions of this country and the world. To do this The Nature Conservancy doesn´t have to own all the land, merely control it. Why buy the land when you can effectively control it through conservation easements? And if they could get paid to manage that land, well, that´s even better! Thus the new battle cry for the Nature Conservancy seems to be a variation on Horace Greeley´s sage advice: "Go west young man . . . and bring back conservation easements."

A Trojan Horse

Not everyone is thrilled with The Nature Conservancy´s new look. Huey Johnson, a former western region director of the Conservancy and green activist has said McCormick has "made the Conservancy a tool of government and companies with questionable environmental records."

The Capital Research Center in a report titled "Land Grabbing Secrets Of The Nature Conservancy" said, "The truth is The Nature Conservancy is really little more than a massive, ruthless real estate machine using its tax exempt status and ties to the government to create wealth for itself. The Nature Conservancy hides behind phony corporations; serves as a shill for government agencies and works behind the scenes with more visible environmental groups to intimidate property owners into selling." Their long-term goals, according to The Capital Research Center, are simple: money and power and so far so good. "Its power, wealth and control is almost beyond comprehension," says the Capital Research Center, "yet it is able to maintain an image of idealism and concern for the environment."

Judy Keeler of Animas, New Mexico has been up close and personal with The Nature Conservancy for years and she has been less than impressed. "My experience with the Nature Conservancy is there is no accountability," says Keeler, who´s ranch sits right in the middle of the million-acre Malpais Borderlands/ Nature Conservancy Project. "I´ve been attending meetings, on a local level, for seven years now. I try to go to the Malpai Group meetings, when they invite me, which is rare, even though our ranch sits in the heart of the one million acres they intend to "manage" for ecosystems and fires. If you disagree with them, they just quit inviting you to their meetings. If you question their agenda, they just conceal it a little deeper. They no longer include me, or anyone else that questions their agenda, in their "management" scheme for this one million acres. However, they continue to steam roll their agenda over the tops of all the other land owners in our area.

"TNC didn´t come into our area like friends," continues Keeler. "They came in with the attitude they they knew it all and were going to "educate" us local ignoramuses on how to "properly" manage our ranches. I just keep collecting more information that continues to alarm me as we advance in this "socialistic" agenda, not government owned, just government managed!

"When you study their mode of operation, you can see how they start with something believable, but move to the "unthinkable" quite quickly. Every con started with something believable and good," says Keeler. "That´s how TNC appears to work. In our area, it´s my opinion that the potential gas and oil reserves is what they´d really like to tie up. They already own all the mineral rights under the private lands on the Gray Ranch, this was "granted" to them as a gift from Tenneco about 10 years ago.

"I attended a "Community Based Partnerships and Ecosystems for a Healthy Environment" series about two years ago. It was sponsored by the Gila Forest Service. The series was developed "cooperatively" by the USDA-FS, BLM, US F&W, Park Service, TNC and the NRCS. When I asked how TNC had managed to become a federal agency, the leaders all claimed they weren´t. But most of the workshops were presented by TNC personnel! Now they´re trying to get the local NRCS to promote their concept!

"In all my "meetings" I have become increasingly alarmed at TNC´s move to position themselves as ´The All Knowing and Benevolent Land Managers´ of our public lands," says Keeler. "They have signed MOUs with White Sands Missile Range to manage the land. They´re working on a similar understanding with Fort Huachuca . . . and, Lord knows how many other military bases they´re negotiating with. I figure they´ll make more money "managing" these areas, than they did buying them up! Concludes Keeler, "There´s no doubt in my mind that they are positioning themselves as THE LAND MANAGERS on public land, and by extension, private lands, in the West."

The Green Squeeze

TNC has mastered the art of getting what they want, although their methods often vary. Sometimes it´s sheer intimidation, like the letter from TNC´s Illinois director, Albert Pyott, to a professor in Germany who owned land along the Cache River in Illinois. Pyott wrote, "If your land is not acquired through voluntary negotiation, we will recommend its acquisition through condemnation."

They have other methods that are a little more subtle. TNC of Colorado is attempting to develop a free-range, chemical-free beef product to be marketed under the name, Yampa Valley Beef. They refer to their product as "Conservation Beef" and advertise that, "This new product is healthier to consume and better for the environment. The result is the preservation of the cowboy culture and the natural heritage of the American West." The Ford Foundation gave funds for market research and the W. Alton Jones Foundation gave TNC $100,000 to develop a business plan. Conservation Beef was formed with The Nature Conservancy as a full partner. Guess what you have to do to become a producer for Conservation Beef?

To sign up you must agree to manage your land according to standards the Nature Conservancy helped write. After being accepted into Conservation Beef the rancher must either give The Nature Conservancy a conservation easement on the ranch, or transfer development rights on the property.

The Government´s Realtor

In 1996 TNC received 11 percent of its income from the sale of private land to federal, state and local governments. It is estimated that TNC sells about two-thirds of the private land it purchases to the government. Any profits are used to buy up more land and, in turn, sell it the the government. Such behavior has tabbed TNC with the title of "The Government´s Realtor." In many cases, after the land sale, the government pays TNC to manage the property. Using such a business model TNC could go on forever buying up this nation´s real estate. But it gets even better for them.

The Nature Conservancy receives its seed money to buy land from many of our country´s largest corporations. By giving TNC grant money and outright gifts those companies hope to cloak themselves in a green veil. It quickly became apparent to TNC´s President McCormick that begging for dollars the old fashioned way, with phone solicitors and junk mail, was not the most cost efficient way of doing business. So, McCormick went after corporations. "It´s just a greater return," he says.

This author obtained records from 1994 through 1999 to see what companies, groups or foundations gave money to TNC. The biggest contributor by far was the David & Lucile Packard Foundation who gave TNC grants on 34 occasions totaling over $45 million between 1996 and 1999. The John and Catherine MacArthur Foundation gave money 18 times. General Motors donated nearly five million dollars and more than 100 trucks. Canon U.S.A. contributed $10.3 million in cash and equipment.

Some readers were appalled to read in this publication a few months back that The Nature Conservancy was involved in developing up-scale homes for sale on the coast of Virginia. TNC is also involved in oil production and receives oil royalties. In fact, TNC has gone to the well quite often. From 1994 through 1999 the following oil companies contributed land, mineral rights or money to TNC: Amoco Foundation four times, Texaco Foundation five times, Arco Foundation five times, Mobil Foundation four times, Phillips Petroleum Foundation 10 times, Chevron Foundation 13 times, Unocal Foundation and Exxon Mobil one time each.

The Georgia-Pacific Foundation and Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation, both businesses built on what environmentalists prefer to call "resource extraction," were also major donors.

More recent donations to TNC include those of the Doris Duke Foundation, Wolf Creek Charitable Foundation and the Morgridge Family Foundation who all gave between $10-20 million to TNC´s Campaign for Conservation. Five to ten million dollar donors for the same campaign included the Paul G. Allen Forest Protection Foundation, the Mary Flagler Chary Charitable Trust, Central & South West Corporation and the George S. & Delores Dore Eccles Foundation. Charities and corporations donating $1 million or more include the Ahmanson Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Georgia Pacific Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Victoria Foundation and the William Penn Foundation.

The Nature Conservancy´s business model of extracting large sums of cash from companies and then using the money to buy up conservation easements, is brilliant and quite effective. But doesn´t it seem ironic that this nation´s businesses, the product of free enterprise and private property rights, are financing the potential lock-up of vast areas of this country? Is this what our founding fathers had in mind?

Land owners and ranchers who might be considering donating development rights or a conservation easement on their land to the TNC, believing it will be protected forever, might want to consider The Nature Conservancy´s seemingly unquenchable thirst for land, money and power. Who´s to say what the TNC will do with your land in 10, 50 or even or even 100 years from now if they need the cash?

Forever is a very long time, you know?