Ecologyfund now allows visitors to donate one acre per month of wilderness land for free

Kunin/Guzmich KUNIN at prodigy.net
Sun Jul 23 23:18:49 EST 2000


I agree with Steve.  We can only accomplish our goals by being completely
aboveboard.  I work with Ecologyfund (www.ecologyfund.com), a click to
donate website that now allows visitors to click and donate over 1400 sq.
ft. of wild land per day to be added to parks and nature reserves in 5
countries and 11 habitats.  (362 sq. ft. of regular donations and 1066 sq.
ft. with special donations).  All land is purchased by sponsors or paid for
by the advertisers, it is free to click.  100% of sponsors money is used to
protect wild land, all administrative expenses are paid by Charitymall.

We have just added a project supporting Pronatura (Mexico's largest
conservation organization) in protecting the habitats of endangered Mexican
wildlife in the Cuatro Cienegas Basin and the Sierra Madre Occidental, where
the largest remaining breeding colony of the Mexican Thick-billed parrot
lives.  There are less than 2000 breeding pairs of these parrots.
Protection of this forest (scheduled to be logged in 2002) will allow
scientists to augment the breeding colonies in other parts of Mexico, and
hopefully allow the parrots to return to the Sky Islands of the Southwestern
US where they have not been seen for 70 years.

If you click and donate on all buttons everyday for a 31 day month, this
will result in a donation of over one acre of land.  (If you click and
donate every day on the rainforest site, you will donate one acre in 8.2
years at the present level of 14.4 sq. ft./day.  If you click on the Big Cat
project of Care2, you will never donate any land, even though it says that
1.3 acres is "supported" for each 1/2 cent sponsorship.  This seems to me to
be an example of the double speak that Steve is complaining of.  This figure
is derived by dividing the project area by the project budget.  No land is
actually being purchased.  If the budget is small or the area big, the
amount of land "supported" is very large, without having any real meaning).

We try very hard to base our work on the best science available.  We are wor
king to protect habitats that have become imperiled (Only 1/50th of 1 % of
tall grass prairie remains), habitats upon which endangered species depend
(their are 100 endemic plants and animals in Mexico's Cuatro Cienegas
Valley), or areas that provide linkages or corridors for animal movement
between protected areas. (We will be funding an effort in the Cascades
starting next week).  We also fund projects to create protected areas (our
Coastal Patagonia project) and areas of stunning bio-diversity (our Amazon
project with 14 species of primates).  We try to provide as much information
as possible about our project areas, and link to the sites of our partner
land trusts for additional information.

The environmental movement doesn't need to pad our numbers, because as Steve
suggests it undermines our cause.  This doesn't mean that we should be
complacent, or put off action to wait for another study.  We need to act to
preserve remaining wilderness, based on the best information that we have,
and constantly refer to new information to improve our focus and set our
priorities.  If anyone would like more information about any of the projects
on Ecologyfund, or would like to suggest organizations that could use our
support please email me at: kunin at ecologyfund.com.

 - Tim Kunin


Steve Mezik <stmezik at borg.com> wrote in message
news:3977ABD4.59FB at borg.com...
> Statistics is a wonderful tool, but like most tools...if it is used
> incorrectly then it can be dangerous. Organiizations tend to inflate
> numbers to drive a point home. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Bat
> Conservation International and a host of others have used inflated
> numbers to bring increased power to their cause.  Wasnt it a few years
> ago that we hear that bats eat thousands of mosquitos a night? This was
> false, and I asked a representative why they inflated the numbers. The
> answer was that most people wont question it and even fewer will know
> enough about the subject to argue it.
>
> My point in all this is are we doing the public as well as our causes an
> injustice by not stating the truth?
> Any hint of dishonesty will taint even the best of intentions.
> Concerning the rain forest...how many of you have working knowledge of
> the forests? have you spent time in the forests? Have you made sure that
> what you are stating is fact versus the fantasy? In this regard i
> challenge anyone who wishes to trully make a difference to make an
> effort to question even those good intentions. Patric Moore may very
> well work for the timber interests, but to counter his arguments with
> falsehood will NEVER accomplish a goal.
>
> Steven T. Mezik







More information about the Ag-forst mailing list