TNC: Maybe smaller is better?

[Oak]

The first of a three part series:
*edited: There's a questionaire you have to answer before getting to the article. Quick and painless, and you can put in false answers.*

Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions
Charity Builds Assets on Corporate Partnerships
By David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 4, 2003; Page A01

"The nonprofit Conservancy has traveled far beyond its humble beginnings, when it relied on small donors and acquired a few small plots at a time. Its governing board and advisory council now include executives and directors from one or more oil companies, chemical producers, auto manufacturers, mining concerns, logging operations and coal-burning electric utilities.

"Some of those corporations have paid millions in environmental fines. Last year, they and other corporations donated $225 million to the Conservancy -- an amount approaching that given by individuals."

Full (long) Story Here

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-04-2003 12:48: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

I think smaller would be better for an organization that is focused on one species, but not for TNC. There mission is to conserve/improve biodiversity which more often than naught requires large tracts of land. A smaller organization cannot purchase or managed at this scale. Just my $.01.