I guess it's just me but I find it ironic and striking that two of our partners in conservation are Catapillar tractor, with DU, and Monsato, ( put on the PF site, in very small print), with Pheasants Forever. I suppose we should be glad for help from all sources, but it's hard to believe that the landscrapers will do more good, than the damage they have already done. As with Monsanto, the stonewalling on EPA review, again I wonder if either has our interest at heart, or just talking point in the advertising onslaught. As the movie "Groove Tube" said in the 1970's, "at work in you and without you". Shine On!
Odd Partners in Conservation?
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
UGUIDE
Active member
WOW that is quite amazing O&N. Maybe it would help if we get some serious coin from those partners??
What better way to stifle an organization with significant opposing interests than to invade it from within? Of course there's the question of how that organization then is inherently changed and becomes a charade of what it originally was meant to be. My experience with PP in Ohio is that it mostly serves the interests of private honey hole habitat management with little to no benefit to natural and widespread wildlife populations. Where cash is king truly significant and widespread native wildlife management takes the furthest back seat if it is allowed to have any seat at all.
Last edited:
Be nice to believe the blame you imply falls to the "landscrapers" or chemical folks but those companies exist because there is a demand for their product from We, the People.
The nature of PF in Ohio is driven by land ownership and acreage size.
It is difficult to get on Private in Ohio but that has nothing to do with PF itself, it's cash flow in or out or, the benefits they can deliver beyond the pheasant hunter.
Wildlife managent in most states is also directly related to We, the People.
And, We...often don't know jack about what exists or is needed for a diverse and so healthy human and critter base.
The nature of PF in Ohio is driven by land ownership and acreage size.
It is difficult to get on Private in Ohio but that has nothing to do with PF itself, it's cash flow in or out or, the benefits they can deliver beyond the pheasant hunter.
Wildlife managent in most states is also directly related to We, the People.
And, We...often don't know jack about what exists or is needed for a diverse and so healthy human and critter base.
Some State wildlife agencies do a better job than others in regard to educating land owners and working with local government agencies to help maintain or establish varied wildlife habitats and better conservation practices. Ohio doesn't seem to be one of the better ones.
PP is supposed to be a conservation org.. For a conservation org to be heavily influenced by commercial interests which form some of the greatest oppositions to wildlife and land conservation doesn't seem like a very good idea. Expecting such influences to also help better inform a public or government in regards to good land stewardship is crazy. In reality the opposite usually occurs. I can't imagine the Audubon Soc. or other major wildlife conservation orgs. falling for this kind of heavy influence, which no doubt the same commercial interests would love to see happen. PP would do better to team up with other major wildlife and land conservation orgs. rather than make a nest with the "devil".
There is conflicting evidence that high tech big ag practices are really better when looking at the bigger picture. Solid research shows a definite link between drastic declines in pollinating insects, especially honey bees, and widespread ag pesticide use. Don't expect big ag related entities or governing orgs that are heavily influenced by them to get on the ball and educate the masses about these kinds of things.
Many governing agencies are more heavily influenced by commercial interests and their money rather than what is in the best interest of intelligently coordinated land conservation practice. So it also goes for how many of "we the people" are a better or worse informed public. The better conservation orgs are all the better when they work together and remain less influenced and less divided by the likes of Monsanto , Cargill, etc., etc..
PP is supposed to be a conservation org.. For a conservation org to be heavily influenced by commercial interests which form some of the greatest oppositions to wildlife and land conservation doesn't seem like a very good idea. Expecting such influences to also help better inform a public or government in regards to good land stewardship is crazy. In reality the opposite usually occurs. I can't imagine the Audubon Soc. or other major wildlife conservation orgs. falling for this kind of heavy influence, which no doubt the same commercial interests would love to see happen. PP would do better to team up with other major wildlife and land conservation orgs. rather than make a nest with the "devil".
There is conflicting evidence that high tech big ag practices are really better when looking at the bigger picture. Solid research shows a definite link between drastic declines in pollinating insects, especially honey bees, and widespread ag pesticide use. Don't expect big ag related entities or governing orgs that are heavily influenced by them to get on the ball and educate the masses about these kinds of things.
Many governing agencies are more heavily influenced by commercial interests and their money rather than what is in the best interest of intelligently coordinated land conservation practice. So it also goes for how many of "we the people" are a better or worse informed public. The better conservation orgs are all the better when they work together and remain less influenced and less divided by the likes of Monsanto , Cargill, etc., etc..
Last edited:
Big Anything...Oil, Coal, Timber, Wind...Ag, will always be the easiest black hats to blame....rather than that which is closest home and most difficult to address.
Much the same as the raptor rap...and just as wrong.
Many stoops have blame set upon them as empty milk bottles wait in the morning sun.
Untill We is addressed and convinced, little will change and much will cycle along as before.
Much the same as the raptor rap...and just as wrong.
Many stoops have blame set upon them as empty milk bottles wait in the morning sun.
Untill We is addressed and convinced, little will change and much will cycle along as before.
I disagree.
The raptor rap is in no way comparable to addressing and understanding the causes and affects of land development, large scale modern industrial ag practices and their related negative effects on wildlife conservation. One perspective is true and backed by science and the other is false. One position is backed by large financial interests and the other is not. Not even on the same page.
If "we is addressed" by and share in support of supposed authorities of conservation and government leaders who are heavily influenced by forces that run counter to understanding and practicing more balanced conservation practices then "we" do share in that responsibility mostly for failing to seek , speak and act for truth to such power.
The raptor rap is in no way comparable to addressing and understanding the causes and affects of land development, large scale modern industrial ag practices and their related negative effects on wildlife conservation. One perspective is true and backed by science and the other is false. One position is backed by large financial interests and the other is not. Not even on the same page.
If "we is addressed" by and share in support of supposed authorities of conservation and government leaders who are heavily influenced by forces that run counter to understanding and practicing more balanced conservation practices then "we" do share in that responsibility mostly for failing to seek , speak and act for truth to such power.
Raptors are a small factor, comparably, and whether "large financial interests" play the presently popular black heliocopter role for everything from soup to nuts or, a smaller and more realistic one is often based upon the fear and agendas of those rating.
WE, for example, are the ones most limiting Big Timber from managing our National Forests for a healthy diversity...I wish BT would be more influenced by financial interests to do a proper bang-up job.
Government leaders are affected by votes...WE vote.
Too often w/o proper thought and for our own oxen.
Many directly tasked to manage our habitats and critters are affected by political appointees ie the EPA, by obstructionists ie the SELC and BFC and by a simple weariness of continually trying and being stopped at nearly every turn by the system they exist under ie, in many ways, the ODNR.
WE often blame the wrong folks.
I am neither surprised by that nor heartened there will be any change in that quarter.
"Forces" work best in a Bond movie script or on a Glenn Beck show.
WE, for example, are the ones most limiting Big Timber from managing our National Forests for a healthy diversity...I wish BT would be more influenced by financial interests to do a proper bang-up job.
Government leaders are affected by votes...WE vote.
Too often w/o proper thought and for our own oxen.
Many directly tasked to manage our habitats and critters are affected by political appointees ie the EPA, by obstructionists ie the SELC and BFC and by a simple weariness of continually trying and being stopped at nearly every turn by the system they exist under ie, in many ways, the ODNR.
WE often blame the wrong folks.
I am neither surprised by that nor heartened there will be any change in that quarter.
"Forces" work best in a Bond movie script or on a Glenn Beck show.
Our government agencies are not operated solely on citizen votes or financial influence of commercial interests though currently there is certainly an excessive amount of influence from the latter. Ideally most important decisions are left to folks with scientific knowledge on a particular subject where citizens vote for educated and conscientious managers to help make those decisions.
Old age forests are native to the natural environment and generate unique environments that are required for certain species. Similarly new growth young forests also favor certain other species. Both are important in the nature.
Old age forests are native to the natural environment and generate unique environments that are required for certain species. Similarly new growth young forests also favor certain other species. Both are important in the nature.
Last edited: