> Yes, I agree a degree of centralisation is necessary to pull the many
> threads of conservation into a voice loud enough to be heard. I'm
> just a bit pissed off at the way these centralised agencies turn into
> grinding machines pushing paper whilst habitat goes under. I believe
> their members should ensure they are kept on their toes.
I really suggest you look closely at what The Nature Conservancy is
doing. Yes, it is a large national organization, but it is broken up into
state field offices. Each field office is intimately aware of its jurisdiction
and is, in effect, a local agency. There are so many different regions of
the US, different in laws and culture, that this approach is necessary and
effective.
Finally, a recent issue of the Journal of Philanthropy (I think that is the
name of it) noted The Nature Conservancy as the 15th largest endowment in
the US! And for every dollar donated to The Nature Conservancy, 87% goes
directly to land conservation. A measly 13% overhead is pretty damned
efficient as far as I am concerned. The Nature Conservancy's mission is not
to change laws, but to rather protect land in a low key, effective way.
Yes, I'm biased. But the numbers are valid and compelling.
BAMR