Conservation

Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

Eel-grass

a childhood memory..fishing by the shore without a care in the world, except to hook that little perch below...

I've maintained all along that biological restorations are a scam...an unnecessary retooling of nature to fit a pre-conceived model...restorations ignore dispersal, the means by which species travel..by wind, by man, by whatever means...restoration companies spend money removing all species they deem non-native..they do this by killing, poisoning, destroying...herwe's some more evidence that the efforts, some with taxpayer money, are causing more harm than good...and I just came across this piece of information about the Channel Island Restoration: they actually went after honey bees to...it's called bee hunting and the Nature Conservancy (supporters of BP Oil) along with aother entities, went about removing bee colonies, some hundreds of years old, because they were "introduced" from Europe...these feral bees they call "white man's flys"..unbelievable..no wonder bees are disappearing with an enemy like man trying to kill them!!

Margaret Palmer, a restoration ecologist at the University of Maryland, is worried about what might be missing from the literature, too—as well as what might be missing from Jones and Schmitz’s database hits. Studies without “resilience” or “recovery” may not have shown up. Palmer says reports of stream and river restoration in the past five years, for instance, have not documented much success in restoring either overall biodiversity or particular species. In her view, restoration of these ecosystems is failing because the techniques are not working and indeed “might be damaging.” She recently published a review of 78 projects and found only eight showing evidence of positive recovery. (3) Palmer says she now leans toward taking a page from conservation: “The focus needs to be on preserving land and letting it go back to forest. Much more so than on restoration.”

Angst is part and parcel of restoration science, despite its underlying hopefulness. Angst that restoration will justify destruction. Angst about what it means to “play God.” Angst that no ecosystem can return to a self-sustaining, historically biodiverse state—or that those historical states will even be remembered.

Several years ago we relied on earlier accounts of how one might find colonies by use of the “bee box” technique and embarked upon a formidable task (Wenner 1989). We agreed to help The Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service in their Northern Channel Islands conservation/restoration program by locating and removing all feral (wild) European honey bee colonies from Santa Cruz Island, off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. Preliminary results (unpublished) indicate that the European bees on the island visit primarily introduced European flora, while the more than a hundred species of solitary bees visit mostly native flora. We work under the assumption that removing the honey bees should help restore the island to a pre-European ecology...

of course, this is a false assumption..wasteful and criminal, these restorations and the people behind them must be stopped!!

Like all industries, the non-profit sector has its fair share of pockmarks and blemishes. Yet while it seems easy to take unflattering insider accounts from certain industries -- say, the energy and chemicals industries -- at face value, it is much more difficult to fully accept the criticisms made of environmental non-profits like The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club, many of which some of us have either worked with or volunteered for in the past.

In Green, Inc., though, veteran journalist Christine MacDonald manages to craft a damning account of the green non-profit world that is both believable and even-handed. Having worked at one of the world's largest environmental groups, Conservation International, until fairly recently (in their public relations department, no less), MacDonald had a bird's-eye view of some of the industry's clubby practices and suspect dealings and minces no words in going after its shady corporate partnerships, lavish pay packages and other unsightly aspects.

As some reviews have noted, MacDonald's book suffers in parts from a lack of nuance: While it is certainly true that corporate associations often raise (very) valid ethical and financial questions, they can, in some cases, guide meaningful progress in the business community -- a point that sometimes feels lost in her overarching narrative. Several of the stories she recounts, including The Nature Conservancy's ethical lapses and run-ins with the IRS and the Sierra Club's endorsement of a Clorox product, may seem a little rehashed given how much attention they have already received over the last few years.

On the whole, MacDonald's critique makes for a fascinating read and is well worth checking out if you're interested in learning how some of the largest groups were formed and how they operate. The stories she tells of some of the corporate partnerships gone (terribly) bad, and their impacts on the developing world's environment, are particularly noteworthy for those of us who don't pay nearly enough attention to the oft insurmountable challenges smaller organizations in these countries face. I recently had the chance to talk to Christine MacDonald about her book and her thoughts on how to reform the industry's failed practices:

TreeHugger: What motivated you to write this book?

Christine MacDonald: I had the opportunity to work at one of the preeminent environmental groups in the world, Conservation International. And the gross mismanagement and wastefulness I saw there troubled me. When I learned these practices were not exclusive to CI, I felt I had a responsibility to speak up and get these issues out in the open. I hope this book helps to start a debate on how to reform these organizations so they can be more effective.