BootsnAll Travel Community

I'm curious where BnA folks are with regard to this org. I was a member last year b/c I wanted to be active locally, but the local group didnt contact me (nor did I join up with them) so I dont think I will sign up again... I didnt like how they kept asking for more money for special campaigns. If I had money, that might be one thing, but even the $20 or so fee I paid was a considered donation.

Their magazine is pretty good, and the trips they list are great travel daydream material, but always seem expensive and I wonder what kind of people sign up.

What is your experience? Are you a member? why or why not? ever been on one of their trips? How was it? Other thoughts on Sierra Club?

mina, I had the same experience as you...pretty much. I joined last year, did one local guided hike, but other than that, nothing. I do like their magazines and their local mags are interesting as well. And I hear ya about the asking for more money part...

I also agree about the their trips. I looked at a few and was like..well, their trip costs $5000, do it on my own for $2000. Gee...which one should I do? I figure it's people like my filthy rich sister who would sign up for one of their trips.

I didn't sign up for this year..it was a one time deal for me, I think.

I've read a lot about them, and always read news accounts of their activities. I agree with their beliefs, and their ideals, but they are just too extreme for me. I have a similar situation with the National Rifle Association. Totally believe in what they stand for, just too extreme. Maybe these days these types of groups need to take things to the limit, just to be able to compromise down in the end. (And get more press at the same time.)

I'm torn about organizations like this. On the bad side, there's the beauracracy and the over-whininess factor. A beauracracy is quite wasteful with overhead and the seeming inability to rid itself of dead weight. Over-whininess is quite debatable, but it just seems helpless to me to show pictures of polar bears losing ground when that is inevitable with a growing consumer population. There's just no way to avoid that if everyone wants to have children and we all want to drive our own cars and deny mass-transport levies, etc etc etc, whine whine whine. I whine too.

Positive side: a big beauracracy is better able to pull weight on a political level, and better able to put together enough funding to reach the critical mass to have a lasting effect in a troubled area. The latter clause of the latter sentence may require further explanation to make sense, but I don't feel like doing so.

Myself, I give balloon payments to the local humane society when I get the chance and aren't overly fiending for a trip. This option has a huge comparitive effect if you believe that animals (let's just leave the argument at vertebrates for now) can suffer about as much as humans. I gave some for the tsunami deal, but from what I hear perhaps it might not have been as well spent as possible for charities. Then again, that's just something I read in some newspapers which I rip on all the time, so I don't know if that's true or not. They said that far more money was dumped into the helping programs than they can effectively use for a year or more.

I've had a nip of whiskey.

I would have felt better if that 'if' on the vertebrate clause were a 96 pt bold 'IF' on the original document. I'm not fully confident in it myself for all vert's.

I used to dig the Sierra Club but then for awhile there it seemed they were lining up with the lefty facists like Greenpeace and worse yet Peta and I didn't like the extreme way they looked like they were heading in so I dropped out about a year after I dropped out of the NRA.

I would love, and I do mean LOVE, to know how many members of the Sierra Club, or donors anyway, drive SUV's and live a lifestyle that doesn't necessarily "align" with ideals.

I'm sure there are many members/donors who are genuine and sincere...but I'd bet my last gallon of petrol--the one being doused on W in another thread today--that among the Sierra Club population there is a fair-sized portion of look-the-other-way hypocrites.

Maybe I'm feeling cynical today?

No SUV for me. And I did volunteer a summer to teach kids about the environment, different ecosystems, and about animals and such...

But yeah, I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of hypocrites out there.

braslvr, hillybillyhippie: What do you mean "too extreme" and "lining up with lefty facists"? It almost seems like the opposite to me, what with the burocracy and all. Please educate me.

Ideologically I find myself agreeing with most of what they do/say and I like that they do lobbying and political advocacy, ANWR loss aside, that is important work... they're not chaining themselves to smokestacks or dousing fur-wearers with red paint.. I'm just curious, what is extreme to you?

mina, where I live in No. Cal, the sierra club wants no logging whatsoever on public lands. They use totally bogus tactics such as the spotted owl habitat. When logging does take place, they want all the debris left over to remain on the ground for "habitat". The animals that use this habitat are mostly rodents - rats, mice, ground squirrels, and the like, none of which are endangered at all. At the same time, this logging slash is what is causing fires to become massive firestorms. I live right in the middle of it.

I'm no fan of the current logging practices in effect in the pacific northwest, and changes need to be made, but they should be decided by sound reasoning.

I'm not saying SC is bad. Without their extreme position being presented, big timber would probably have raped the land far worse than they already have.

I see, thanks for the explanation banana-man. Can that be your new name? ...No? er, okay, thanks braslvr "totally bogus tactics" eh?

I guess it is all a matter of perspective. When I lived in Alaska, I was CONVINCED by local people that drilling in the arctic is a good idea. Good for the economy, good for the people and the country, and wouldnt ruin the environment. But when I left, my environmental-leaning tendency reasserted itself and told me it was BAD (disclaimer: I was an impressionable teenager at the time).

Not the same situation as you are citing, I know (you sound more knowledgable than I about your local industries for one thing) but still an interesting dynamic to observe first-hand.

Kind of makes you wonder who has the ideological middle ground.

quote:

thanks for the explanation banana-man.

Oh no.

NTFT - I agree. Of course, I'm a cynic as well.

I can stand Sierra Club slightly - they're way better than Greenpeace and PETA, both of which are organizations I have absolutely no respect for. I consider them to be slightly more moderate than the whackedout-ness of Greenpeace/PETA.

quote:

Originally posted by TunaJuice:
Over-whininess is quite debatable, but it just seems helpless to me to show pictures of polar bears losing ground when that is inevitable with a growing consumer population. There's just no way to avoid that if everyone wants to have children and we all want to drive our own cars and deny mass-transport levies, etc etc etc, whine whine whine. I whine too.

I agree and disagree with this, Tuna. It's not so much the growth in population as it is our (the United States') rate of resource consumption. I believe that organizations such as the S.C. play an important role in creating an awareness of the impact of our resource consumption on our natural environment. And, as others have pointed out, sure, there are hypocrites, who don't put into practice what the organization advocates. But, your statements above illustrate the need for organizations who will point out inconsistencies between not only individual citizens' consumptive behavior, but also public policy, and our desire to breathe clean air, enjoy healthy forests, etc.

I have contributed to both the S.C. and Greenpeace in the past, but eventually realized that, first, I couldn't afford it as a (then) student and then a person trying to pay off his debts and, second, that I could do more good simply by continuing to lead a less consumptive lifestyle -- use my bike to commute to work, pick up groceries, run errands, etc.; cook my own meals; eat no meat; etc.

And, braslvr, I'll defer to your local knowledge of the situation in CA, but the small animals that use the habitat created by debris left become prey that is often critical for other species, which may be endangered.

Tim

mina I didn't mean to sound like they had become like PETA or Greenpeace just that it seemed to me they were leaning heavier and heavier in that direction. That and admittily the cost factor is why I quit. Though this was a few years ago.

The same reason why I left the NRA really, I mean assult weapons? Come on, whats the point? You try to take away my regular hunting rifles though and then you'll have a fight on your hands.

One thing I read about, and agree with, is that if the NRA and other hunting/fishing organizations, along with conservation organizations, would take a step back and realize that many of their ideals are in sync with each other (after all, the hunters/fishers want stable ecosystems, and pristine lands, so that they have something to actually hunt), they'd be a serious force to be reckoned with, as far as politics are concerned.

I think there are extremes on both ends, and I'm all for a middle ground.

I agree w/ Tuna regarding overpopulation, and how it's going to be a major factor in conservation in the long run (overpopulation covers everything...food production, overfishing, land use, etc etc). It's not just material stuff; it's the fact that more people means we need to find out ways to feed more people, and feed the consumptions that people have. I'm not just talking the U.S. here, because conservation issues are a world problem.

As far as logging in the west, well, again it's tied to people and their safety. Regarding braslvr's comments, in the natural state, forest fires should have been occurring for the past century, and 'allowed' to happen, because fires are vital to the health of many ecosystems...but obviously people don't want their homes and livelihoods to be burnt down, and the fires need to be taken care of. But it's the lack of this natural 'cleansing' that causes a lot of the undergrowth buildup, which then in turn provides more fuel for future fires, so that future fires are out of control. As for leaving the undergrowth after logging, I don't know enough about that; but it's my position that logging itself isn't natural ecologically, so the remaining debris wouldn't be natural. However, in a natural ecosystem, where trees naturally decay, that 'debris' is absolutely vital to ecosystems -- keeping nutrients in the system, providing habitat for critters.

I'm not so extremely left as to be completely opposed to logging, fishing, hunting, etc etc, because let's be realistic, this stuff is necessary for our society and survival. And in historic times, people survived off of the land. It's just that there are so many of us now, that it's getting out of control, and conservation is becoming very important. I DO think, though, that logging and other stuff needs to be done responsibly, and in areas that are not 'pristine' such as the pacific NW, or other really wild pockets.

I myself give some money to the Nature Conservancy,and belong to the Audubon Society, and I just sent a little bit to the National Park Service, seeing as they aren't exactly on the receiving end of much governmental money....

Tough issues.

Lynn

I donated to SC while I lived in the US. I've switched to Greenpeace & Medicines Sans Frontiers now.

Extremism in environmental groups is visible and for some reason objectionable to a lot of people.

Yet when faced with the monolithic, entrenched, sociopathic and implacable forces of business and government, I find it very understandable.

Corporations and the people who run them have no conscience and will literally keep manufacturing and reaping profits until there's no more of anything left. Old growth forests, unspoilt wilderness, clean air etc.
The general population meanwhile, will happily keep consuming in the 1st world and having babies in the 3rd world while resources run dry.

This is extremism - to endanger the continued health and existence of us all for the sake of profit and power. Yet you dress in a business suit and tie, look responsible on TV, give people a lifestyle they become addicted to, and then suddenly, the ones who care enough and are far-sighted enough to actually want to ensure the long-term survival and diversity of life on earth are extremists.
Businesses pour stuff into rivers
leave wilderness damaged after drilling
keep logging because it would take away short term jobs if they stopped
directly and indirectly help species go extinct every year
lobby government to ease restrictions on their corporate responsibility
employ people in 3rd world countries illegally
and on and on and on.

I don't care at all what excuse anyone uses to try and save something for once. I'm tired of watching it all disappear while the mass of people do little or nothing.

I'd rather have the environmental extremists than the corporate ones.

Sorry Mina, that's off-topic. I never intended to use SC as a travel or wilderness resource. I just wanted to donate to their activities.
I even wish Greenpeace & SC would stop printing all these big documents and mailing them out, even on recycled paper I'd prefer an email.

Sorry, but if I could just make a small point here, Greenpeace is not fascist, radical or nuts. Having a society where you can't get by without a car, which can't get by without oil is nuts. Having a society where you're not normal if you don't define yourself as a consumer is nuts. Having a society where it's ok to bomb other places to maintain this lifestyle and your "interests" (i.e. capital) is fascist. I'll stop now and please don't argue with me. Ignore me if you want, but if we argue I can already see the insults flying and this thread being locked down. So don't bother.

B-land, I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I guess I tend to resort to the middle ground, because 90%+ of the people out there simply don't view things the way we do, and/or simply don't care. So I think we have to work with society as it is...unfortunately. Just because I don't really have confidence we can change their outlook - at least, the outlook and direction of society as a whole.

Plus, logging has to happen, because our society needs paper. Now, we can do our best to devise ways for this to happen so it doesn't jeopardize the environment, or minimally impacts ecosystems, but we can't suddenly go paperless. Even using computers instead of paper has its own set of huge problems - i.e. the energy needed to run all of the technology, hazardous waste components, etc. Which is the bigger evil? I don't know. But maybe that's a dumb point, because everyone already uses computers (multiple per one household, even), PLUS paper.

A month or so ago I thought, 'What on earth is the POINT of me going back to school to study Conservation Biology,' when I might be facing the rest of my life getting depressed and frustrated because no one cares, or the government doesn't want to pay attention to my research?? My friend told me, because if there weren't people like me (like us), then there wouldn't be any hope at all, and no one would be out there trying to protect the environment.

Uh..sorry for the tangent.

I'm not saying it's excusable for society and their outlook..I'm saying we just might have to try to work with it, and go from there. We're not gonna change the 90%+ of people by telling them they're wrong, because you don't change people that way..I don't think there's a simple solution.