Talk:The Nature Conservancy/Archives/2020/February

NPOV concerns

This article is not NPOV. Someone should add a section on Criticisms of the Nature Conservancy. There was a series of articles in the Washington Post a couple of years back about certain concerns at the NC which would be a good starting point. If no one does this, I'll try to do it when I have time. Martinp 18:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (who is actually a NC supporter)

Took a first stab at this, wikified, and removed the NPOV tag. Improvements welcome. Martinp 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the inefficient section under criticisms due to the fact that they do recieve high marks from the BBB wise giving alliance as well as charitynavigator.com additionally according to both they use slightly more money percentage wise than the National Wildlife Federation but less than Defenders of Wildlife (unsigned comment)

User Wellspring removed the following statement: "The organization promotes commercial development of its holdings; some of these developments have resulted in the destruction of endangered species habitat[3] and violation of indigenous persons rights to live on their native lands.[4]" Wellspring stated reason was that the sources did not support the statement, which I find to not be true by reading the cited articles as well as other critical articles about the Conservancy from notable outlets such as the Washington Post. Therefore I undid his edit and placed the statement and sources within the lead of the article. Nnoell (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The sections on Criticisms need sharpening and re-organizing. To start with, it is not helpful to give a detailed rebuttal of the Washington Post articles without first summarizing the key points in those articles. The NC typically has local branches with board members with vested interests who steer policy and practice in their own direction. While the NC's work is mostly valuable, it is a large, well-connected organization that operates secretively, and is at least as concerned about itself as about the environment, While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it needs far more independent analysis, criticism and comment (like this!) to do its job effectively. The Wikipedia article should be a step in this direction, not the advertisement it currently seems to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.61.206 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. My experience here on Long Island has been a cosy, and sometimes unhealthy, relation between the local NC and developers. For example, while the local NC listed one large parcel as a number one priority for protection, based on rare flora and fauna, one of the developers was a member of the LI Board, and successfully steered the NC away from vigorously opposing development (which has now happened). I'm sure this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. At the very least criticisms published in respected newspapers should be given greater prominence. Paulhummerman (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post covered an article in 2010 about the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York grossly overpaying for land bought from TNC "NY gave environmental org. absurd $3.7M profit for forest" I think this would add to the previous two comments from a slightly different angle. Articles "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" by Dana Gatusso and "Taxpayers funding huge federal and green land-grab" by Dustin Hurst highlight similar problems with government conservation easements and conservancy land grabs.

Did anyone try to write about the Attwater Prairie Chickens? In 1995 Mobil Oil donated 2,263 acres of an oil field in Texas to be used for a Attwater Prairie Chicken refuge. There were less than 40 of these chickens remaining, half of which resided on the donated land. After TNC's acquisition, they proceeded to sink new gas wells to generate a source of income. This conservation effort failed miserably. The oil drilling operation delayed the release of the chickens, which made them vulnerable to raptor predation. Five of the birds died in their cages while awaiting release from flooding.

The "Too Close For Business" section should mention James E. Rogers being the Vice Chair. He became the Vice Chair shortly after retiring from Duke Energy as President and CEO. Duke Energy is among the top industrial polluters in the US. They hold the #1 spot for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, #52 Toxic Air Polluter, and #12 for Toxic Water Pollution. Yudhei (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

I've deleted the quote from POLITICO, but kept the description and link in the Sexual Harassment Controversies section. It seems disproportionate for 2.5% of the article on a large global NGO to be a single anonymous quote, from a single article in POLITICO.131.181.53.179 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Most Trusted Organizations" Harris Poll

The article states that The Nature Conservancy rates as one of the most trusted national organizations in Harris Interactive polls every year since 2005 but I don't see evidence of that they have since 2009 or possibly 2010. Is there a better link we can use to support that claim? If there there is not evidence of that, should we just remove that sentence?

Dead Links

Here are a few references I saw that go to "Page Not Found" error pages.

63.^ "Nature Conservancy". Undueinfluence.com. Retrieved September 15, 2016.

64.^ "Schwarzkopf Shines at Safari Club International Life Members Breakfast". Thefreelibrary.com. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

52.^ "Payless Partners with the Plant a Billion Trees Campaign, Launches Eco-Friendly Line". StyleCaster. April 13, 2009. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

38.^ "Seychelles to protect more than 400,000 square kilometers of Ocean - Reef Builders | The Reef and Marine Aquarium Blog". Reef Builders. March 18, 2016. Retrieved September 15, 2016.

31.^ Adams, Lisa (November 13, 2004). "Plan would protect swath of Yucatán forest". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved June 25, 2015.

6.^ "Non Profit Organization | About Us | The Nature Conservancy". Nature.org. January 17, 2013. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

2.^ "About The Nature Conservancy". Nature.org. January 23, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

Bad References

These references don't appear to go to a page with the cited info (though maybe they did in the past):

53.^ "Customer Service – Payless Shoes". Payless ShoeSource. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

50.^ "Disney joins forces with the nature conservancy to plant 2.7 million trees in conjunction with first week ticket sales for Disneynature's debut feature, 'Earth'" (PDF). Disney.go.com. April 29, 2009. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

51.^ "Plant a Billion Trees – Penguin Classics – Penguin Group (USA)". Us.penguingroup.com. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

49.^ "Conservation & Green News | The Nature Conservancy". Nature.org. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

35.^ "The Montana Legacy Project — Northwest Connections". Northwestconnections.org. June 30, 2008. Retrieved September 15, 2016.

33.^ "Nature Conservancy News Room – The Forestl". Nature.org. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

9.^ "2008 Harris Poll". Harrisinteractive.com. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

10.^ "2007 Harris poll". Harrisinteractive.com. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

11.^ "2006 Harris poll". Harrisinteractive.com. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

12.^ "2005 Harris poll". Harrisinteractive.com. Retrieved February 21, 2014.

Duplicate References

Both reference 46 and 48 point to the same thing (though they were retrieved at different times). Should these be combined?

46.^ "Plant A Billion Trees – one dollar at a time – with The Nature Conservancy". Plantabillion.org. Retrieved February 2, 2013.

48.^ "Plant A Billion Trees – one dollar at a time – with The Nature Conservancy". Plantabillion.org. Retrieved February 22, 2014.

Fair use rationale for Image:Tnc logo 2007.jpg

Image:Tnc logo 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Section appears to copy news item

This section was removed from the page because it appears to be copied from a news source:

:January 16, 2003

Nature Conservancy to sell donated woodland. Woodbury, NY – Katherine Stainton dedicated herself to keeping her town green.:She served for years on the parks commission and donated land for a town park. :When she died, two of her children gave their shares of her 178-acre estate to the Nature Conservancy.:The nature preservation group plans to sell the mostly wooded property to a developer. "We are selling it, and we have an offer that we have accepted," said John Dwelley, dispositions manager for the conservancy, which is based in Arlington, Va. Dwelley wouldn't reveal the sale price or identity of the expected buyer, except to say the buyer is well-known for his projects in Woodbury. :Sources confirmed the buyer is Wayne Corts, who's building the luxurious Greens of Woodbury, a 63-home development off Smith Clove Road. Corts didn't return calls for comment. Dwelley said the conservancy always planned to sell its portion of the Stainton property - which is off Dunderberg Road and near Monroe-Woodbury High School - since it harbors no rare plants or animals and has no special ecological significance. : There are several vacant homes and other buildings on the property. Part of the land was once farmed. : "It's not like it's a pristine piece of property," he said.

But the sale irks a neighbor of the estate and a board member of the Orange County Land Trust, a land-preservation group. He said the land should be preserved because Woodbury needs open space for passive recreation to balance the population growth in town. : And he feels the conservancy may have overlooked environmentally significant features of the property. Besides, he added, its selling land to a developer "just seems to run so counter to what they're about." : The Nature Conservancy viewed the estate as "trade land," useful mainly for the proceeds that could be raised by selling it. It often sells assets it's given - including land, houses and condominiums - to finance efforts to protect more significant property, Dwelley said. : Locally, the conservancy is working to protect the Shawangunk Ridge and the 60-mile-long Neversink River. Stainton, who died in 1994 at age 90, belonged to the wealthy Cornell family, which has deep roots in Central Valley. : She was a longtime member of the Woodbury Parks Commission. In 1970, she bought 100 acres around Earl Reservoir and donated it to the town, creating what is today a beloved town park. : After her death, two of her children, agreed to give their portions of the estate to the Nature Conservancy. A second daughter, had separate plans for her third of the land. In October 1998, the three heirs agreed in Orange County Surrogate Court to divide the land into three shares of equal worth, if not equal size. : In January 2000, the conservancy first went before the Woodbury Planning Board for approval to subdivide the land. But by the middle of last year, after 2½ years before the board, the conservancy gave up.: By then, the three heirs had agreed to sell the property without subdividing it. One heir would get a third of the proceeds, and the Nature Conservancy would take half of the remaining two thirds. The final portion would go to another, unspecified charity. In the end, the conservancy spent "several hundred thousands of dollars" on property taxes and fees for lawyers and engineers while seeking subdivision approval, Dwelley said. : Even so, the organization hopes to make some money from the deal in order to fund its preservation work. "We are optimistic," Dwelley said, "that there will be some left over." One of the heirs, said by phone that he and his sister knew the conservancy would sell their portions of the estate and he had no objection to a developer buying it. : "We gave it to the conservancy so they could sell it to whoever they wanted," he said. "It's old farmland. There's nothing very special about it." : A neighbor said Katherine Stainton's work in preserving open space in Woodbury only heightens the irony of a land-preservation group selling her property to a developer. "It's like a double or triple irony to me," he said. : The land was sold to the CARTERET GROUP in Pearl River, NY, is now the future home of Woodbury Junction a development of 450 homes 130 being senior housing starting around $300,000.00 each.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.77.157 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While removal of the section as written seems ok, it does illustrate a valid point that should be addressed in the main article: land donations are sometimes made in the hope that the land will remain open space, even though that land might be of low ecological significance. When the land would be useful to the surrounding densely developed community as natural open space, it does serve an ecological goal, even though it might not host important species: it can serve to enhance public appreciation of the natural world, and thereby encourage public support for conservation.24.44.92.155 (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We had a somewhat similar experience with them here in Maine that really opened my eyes to what they are really all about. I'm glad to see that there is a criticism section for this article. If you can still find that article, would you have time to add a few words here? Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Historical timeline update

It would be good if someone would insert into this section when they launched their website on the internet. That's also part of the TNC's history.Zul32 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Heroes bit

I've chopped the following short list. Seems to need some introductory material cited to the Conservancy or elsewhere regarding such heroes plus some criteria. The Petty article doesn't mention this hero bit. Vsmith (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'==Nature Conservancy Heroes==

• Ben Kennedy..Montana <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/opinion/22tue4.html?ref=opinion</ref><ref>http://www.queencitynews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10892&mode=flat&order=0&thold=0</ref>

• Clarence Petty<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/science/earth/06petty.html?_r=1&hpw</ref><ref>http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/51186.html</ref>

"It is the discontent..." Huh?

In the "Hands off our Land" section, this sentence appears:

"It is the discontent that ranchers, outdoorsmen and other recreational enthusiasts question if the conservation of land, plants and animals restricts the ability for farmers to do so responsibly."

I added a "failed verification" tag because the cited source (full disclosure: I added the full URL for what appears to be the intended citation, based on the title, date, and domain name) doesn't say anything about that. But beyond that, I'm not sure I can even fully parse this sentence—I was going to rewrite for clarity, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is here. Ideas? Chuck (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that whole section needs some editing. I searched google for "hands off our land" and mostly found articles written about a different organization in the UK or some about the evils of government land use planning. Nothing I could find ties the Nature Conservancy with this other than obvious copies *from* wikipedia. dm (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Nature Conservancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140821211804/http://www.nature.org/about-us/our-accountability/annual-report/2013-financial-report-with-report-of-independent-auditors.pdf to http://www.nature.org/about-us/our-accountability/annual-report/2013-financial-report-with-report-of-independent-auditors.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

About to delete paragraph on junk mail

I'm about to delete the paragraph on junk mail in the article. One aspect is that 41pounds.org has issues in terms of WP:RS (poor ratings from the BBB, customer service issues etc.). But even aside from that the page on 41pounds.org (available via waybackmachine for January 27, 2017) never mentions The Nature Conservancy or any particular organizations at all.

I haven't heard commentators like Naomi Klein (mentioned in the article) or others emphasizing junk mail that much, and so one might wonder about how much junk mail compares to other sources.

On Carbonfootprint.org there is a tab called Secondary with a field for Paper based products (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers) but there isn't any field for mailing costs. That cost can be higher for small businesses or companies, but generally isn't that large a percentage of a family budget.

There is a New York Times article from 2009 which speaks about the issue of junk mail saying that 51.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases are emitted each year from mail advertisements, yet on the other hand data from the EPA indicates that in 2009 total greenhouse gas emissions were 6,700.10 million metric tons.

Though for another take on it one can look at the original website and the original report where that 51.5 million figure is mentioned. They talk about the various ways that junk mail impacts the environment...Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One way or another though Klein and others may feel that junk mail is nevertheless a symptom of problems in society.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just deleted that in this edit. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted approach section

I deleted the Approach section for a handful of reasons. 1) Sounded very promotional. 2) Didn't really say anything. It's the exact fluff that every conservation organization puts out. 3) Relied entirely on self published material.

If you disagree with this change, feel free to revert it before having a discussion on the talk page (I won't tag you for edit warring).

Happy editing, Toad02 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I've been making similar, smaller deletions throughout the article. This is information that sounds incredibly promotional and is poorly sourced, although not all of it is pure fluff. Toad02 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

conservation vs. hunting

The article says Like many large environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservancy has also been criticized for including allowances for hunting within its management policies. The organization does not totally ban hunting by their staff nor do they ban it on properties they own.

This was tagged in several ways and I was able to find and add suitable citations for some of it. However the criticism for allowing hunting on NC lands is not a simple allegation. While it is true in that some people critique the conservation groups, they might be observers confused of the purpose(s) of conservation. See, for example this (about 33% from top):

"These activities make environmental efforts sound similar to the work of Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, and local outdoor clubs organized by hunting groups. The early conservation efforts in North America, dating back to the early 1900s, were largely driven by hunters. This overlap is still evident and the perceived conflict between hunters and environmental groups is little more than miscommunication."

More research is needed and probably this phrasing needs to be expanded to honor WP:NPOV. —EncMstr (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)