[HN Gopher] Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
___________________________________________________________________
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-11-05 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (y2y.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (y2y.net)
| midislack wrote:
| This is super interesting because it's basically the Agenda 21
| corridor project meets regionalization.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/810535303
|
| You should always look up any (US-based) charity on Charity
| Navigator. Some of them are basically just jobs programs for the
| founder, their families, and their friends. Not this one.
|
| This one gets a hugely positive rating. Although it's hard to see
| what it's based on. The latest IRS form 990 available for it is
| for 2019.
|
| It's always a good idea to look at a charity's actual
| accomplishments, not its intentions.
| [deleted]
| WalterBright wrote:
| This is such a fine initiative. If I was President this sort of
| thing would be a priority (connecting all the national parks in
| the US). Vote for me 2024!
| peteradio wrote:
| Bring back the Buffalo! Create wildlife corridors from Rocky to
| Mississippi!
| hammock wrote:
| > Create wildlife corridors from Rocky to Mississippi
|
| Are there any funds which currently seek to do this? I'd be
| interested in doing it myself
| brudgers wrote:
| Just for geographic scale, Google says the distance from
| Denver to Memphis is 1000+ miles.
|
| Though of course it would probably make sense to start
| along a river. Maybe the Arkansas if you want to start at
| the Colorado Rockies: length 1400+ miles.
|
| But the Missouri is an option that could connect up with
| the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unfortunately that is
| quite a bit longer at well over 2000 miles (because a river
| does not run as a crow flies).
|
| Anyway, it's going to take a fair bit of money, so there
| will be plenty to pay seven figure executive salaries
| making it a cracker of idea.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| The problem with rivers is that there are cities all
| along them. I can't even imagine the cost.
| brudgers wrote:
| At 1000 miles, the cost of any corridor from the Rockies
| to the Mississippi is pretty much unimaginable anyway, so
| why not fantasize about the right way of doing things?
|
| Or to put it another way, the distance itself is beyond
| what people tend to imagine.
|
| And any route across the Great Plains is going to run
| across prime farmland.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| I did look at the Form 990 for this charity. As of 2019,
| about a $2.5M budget, and only one salaried employee,
| making a not-at-all-princely salary.
|
| Of course, with that amount of money, they can't do much
| more than fund studies.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| People also tend to live near rivers, so it would be
| quite difficult.
| peteradio wrote:
| I'm afraid I'm unaware of any funds. My state funds
| restoration areas on the scale of 80 acre+ parcels, but
| corridors would require an unbelievable amount of
| contiguous spaces. I imagine it would be a multi-century
| project to establish such a thing with all the arm
| twisting.. I mean incentives required.
| vardump wrote:
| If it is confirmed that energy production relieves Yellowstone
| Caldera pressure, should we build geothermal energy plants there?
|
| For the greater good, despite conservation efforts.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Are there no other power generation opportunities besides this
| one? not enough information to decide here; many facets to
| public policy.
| [deleted]
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| For tldr;/context, the Y2Y initiative's main goal is to establish
| (or, re-establish) "habitat connectivity"--the idea that
| organisms can move freely within an ecosystem without too much
| deleterious impact of human interactions.
|
| This is incredibly ambitious, because the "Yukon to Yellowstone"
| region is massive -- 2,100 miles long, from northern Canada to
| the Western US.
|
| One of the landmark achievements of this organization is not
| necessarily any particular kind of project but rather their skill
| in bringing together really diverse stakeholders across a massive
| geography to work toward this goal.
|
| But, because "connectivity" is really the primary mission, and
| because roads/highways are some of the most substantial human
| barriers to habitat connectivity, a large majority of Y2Y
| projects involve making roads safer for wildlife--and people too.
| samstave wrote:
| <3
|
| There should be a standard of though-puts every X distance
| whereby a road MUST provide an under-pass FULL STOP.
|
| Animals need to be able to roam
| jamincan wrote:
| Here in Ontario it seems that the standards for new divided
| highways now include wildlife over or underpasses, at least
| in the north.
| samstave wrote:
| Yeah, I think you bitches invented this idea!!
| ehnto wrote:
| On a smaller scale, we have completed a similar project in my
| state in Australia, and the benefits for both wildlife and
| humans is really something I'm finding fascinating. There's a
| very notable increase in mobility for animals and I'm seeing
| animals near my house I've not seen anywhere nearby before,
| especially different species of birds but also bigger
| marsupials, even Kangaroos, and I live in suburbia.
|
| Couple the nature corridor with native flora in your yard and
| in the parks for humans and you really do see animals
| flourishing. Again, birds in particular are absolutely reveling
| in it. I now hear diverse birdcalls throughout the day and I
| feel like I'm back in my childhood where I lived in the
| outback. This nature corridor goes from the coast, through
| suburbia as revegetation projects, across a low mountain range
| and into the plains, a fantastic diversity of habitats for
| wildlife now interconnected.
|
| The default thinking is that cars are what shoes away animals,
| and it's partly true, but it's really the infrastructure and
| what we take away to build it that causes issues. You can have
| cars, roads, and a more symbiotic relationship with nature if
| you're smart about your infrastructure and make sure to account
| for nature's use of the land.
|
| Same with your home, if you have a yard don't just flatten it
| and keep mowed lawn. Native flora is easier to maintain, better
| for the animals and better for the soil and water runoff. You
| become part of the nature-corridor.
| eloff wrote:
| Where do you live? You paint such a lovely picture that I
| want to visit it one day. I'm planning a trip to Australia
| sometime in the next year.
| cratermoon wrote:
| It's a massive region, but because the region very sparsely
| populated, it seems doable. There will be fewer NIMBYs to
| object to having a road rerouted or a an area deemed wild. On
| the other hand, some of those NIMBYs are property owners who
| will have political or financial interests that conflict with
| conservation.
| panzagl wrote:
| In the US a lot of that territory is Native American
| land/reservation. Feel free to convince them you know how to
| best use their land.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I attended a private meeting of landowners that border
| Yellowstone on one side -- many small moments that could be
| described.. however, it is easy to say that almost every
| person in that meeting was distinctly territorial ..
|
| those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as
| they are now, not "your big plan from the city" .. however
| (mostly) they are there in that location due to personal
| history and (mostly) think and talk in terms of "stewardship
| of the lands" and some even claim personal relationships with
| some of the more prominent creatures that cross their lands.
| Short version is - most will say that they know far better
| than you what the wildlife wants in order to thrive, if it is
| scientifically true or not. Secondly they (mostly) will
| actively tell urban environmentalists to keep their "opinion"
| to themselves, and there is the door. Is this surprising
| among people who managed to own and live on land like that,
| in the 21st century ?
|
| ps- almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the
| calendar year on their lands, that I could tell. Also
| construction of any kind is rarely done as far as I know..
| time between changes is certainly measured in years.. even in
| California, a registered private forest landowner must file
| and wait for years to make small changes to structures, or
| other serious landscaping.
|
| pps- elaborating on "those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep
| things exactly as they are now" .. they are in a social and
| legal system right now, and for decades, that approaches
| changes with huge barriers.. personal objection merges with
| legal prevention and finance limitation.. You think they have
| a few hundred FAANG shares to cash out to make some change?
| no, money is on different paths there and half that I could
| tell, were pretty limited with the cash flow. The point is,
| it is personal will PLUS personal finance limitation PLUS
| legal oversight PLUS decades-learned behavior
|
| ppps- each attendee was/is deeply aware of the natural world
| there. Thinking a lot more about this now, I suspect that the
| meeting I was in, many years ago, in California, was a direct
| component of this 'Yellowstone to Yukon' plan, though I have
| no details.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the
| calendar year on their lands
|
| And this is the thing. Many are absentee landlords, and
| their 'stewardship', such as it is, amounts to doing
| little-to-nothing until the borders of far-flung suburbs
| edge up to their property, then they can either sell it to
| Wal*Mart or outlet store developer and make a tidy profit,
| or contract with a housing developer to get it rezoned,
| parcel it out, and make a huge profit turning it over to
| homebuyers.
|
| They are all territorial and have personal relationships
| with the land until someone waves a few $million in front
| of them.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| well frankly, the obvious flaming on those landowners
| here, more than just being obvious, is causing me to
| reflect on my own bias while posting on this _real
| meeting_ I attended, instead of fighting personal demons
| in some outrage internet comment. First and foremost --
| why did the people in that meeting bother to show up?
| maybe because the ones in the room (mostly) DO care about
| the wildlands. So my comment about "there is the door"
| was my own projection.. no one in that meeting said that,
| I did while thinking about it.. Those people did meet and
| probably some of them are now part of this proposed
| corridor action
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Were you present as an owner of wild lands? Would you
| join this proposed plan?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I presented a small bit of technical detail at that
| meeting as part of the convening environmentalist
| organization; zero interest in computers there,
| basically. re: decisions, the authority of a single vote
| YES/NO is at a maximum in that crowd; even getting the
| physical meeting was a year+ of prep IIR.
| cratermoon wrote:
| I do hope you find allies. There _are_ people out there
| with genuine conservationist intent. These days I hear
| way more about the people who insist on their rights to
| do whatever they want with "their" land.
| hammock wrote:
| >until someone waves a few $million in front of them.
|
| Not sure how familiar you are with the land values around
| Yellowstone (particularly in Wyoming)... a few million
| ain't gonna cut it
| cratermoon wrote:
| Per hectare.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > They are all territorial and have personal
| relationships with the land until someone waves a few
| $million in front of them.
|
| this describes real estate developers.. there are plenty
| of those, and plenty more waiting if they could. But
| wilderness land owners are (mostly) NOT the real estate
| developers really because .. ? test question..
| hammock wrote:
| What I witnessed in Teton Valley is that a branch of the
| Rockefeller family (aka has to be somebody with
| unlimitedly deep pockets) was able to convince over half
| of the traditional longstanding ranches to sell and now
| all that land is being cut up into 2.5 ac lots and
| planned subdivisions. It's still mostly undeveloped
| though, aside from the roads and utility connections
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or
| financial interests
|
| to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not
| describe rural or wilderness landowner behavior.
| cratermoon wrote:
| The worst NIMBYs are the ones in rural areas who think that
| because their family has owned the land for 3 generations
| they have a natural right to it. Never mind that it was
| stolen from indigenous peoples who have a better claim on
| those grounds, because the current landowners will say
| those people never "used" the land, they were just
| visitors.
|
| Edit to add an example:
| https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-
| trail-...
| bbarnett wrote:
| Everyones land was "stolen" from someone else. Everyones.
|
| There is no place on this entire planet, where a domicile
| sits, that wasn't taken from another by force. No where.
| Nada.
|
| You think natives didn't ever kill each other over
| territory? Hunting rights, especially in times of famine?
| You do realise that all of the Americas were settled,
| then resettled again, and again, in multiple waves of
| europeans (all natives settled the new world too, they
| didn't evolve here), by those we call natives, with blood
| and spear?
|
| We just displaced the last "thieves", who displaced those
| before us, and so on.
|
| The only unfairness is if we signed treaties, to end the
| fighting, and then did not honour them.
|
| Those are being addressed, at least in Canada, by the
| courts.
|
| Note: where's my family's land, from 500 years ago, taken
| when the French invaded, or 2000ya when the Romans, and
| so on??
|
| Why don't I get my people's land back?
|
| Is it because I am white? Or, because it was 500 years
| ago, not 200?
|
| Is it OK, because a white man killed my family and took
| the land of another white man?
|
| Or...? Why?!
|
| Natives lost their land, as did billions before. But none
| are alive today, and I could care less about historical
| loss.
|
| I _do_ care about poverty, and right to societal cohesion
| and access. I don 't care why, what historical reason led
| to things, I just care about fixing what is a problem
| now.
|
| If you look at native americans, their reservations are
| their biggest source of poverty.
|
| Enough.
|
| Make sure every child has access to good food, clean
| water, housing, and education. The rest will solve
| itself.
| izend wrote:
| Your thoughts presented would cause you to be cancelled
| in Canada right now.
| bbarnett wrote:
| I speak them all the time, and most agree with me.
| cratermoon wrote:
| echo chambers are a helluva drug
| [deleted]
| hammock wrote:
| You're not disagreeing with each other. The people doing
| the canceling aren't necessarily in the majority
| multjoy wrote:
| >The only unfairness is if we signed treaties
|
| Apart from the literal genocide, you mean?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Feeling that you own the land you legally own doesn't
| seem that bad. Especially if your family has owned it for
| generations.
|
| And it's definitely not NIMBY-ism.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I should note that, in the western US, a lot of the land
| use fights are over things like ranching land, where the
| users of the land _don 't_ own the land (it's BLM land--
| owned by the US government).
| BurningFrog wrote:
| That's a separate, but also very interesting issue, that
| is almost entirely unknown to us big city people.
|
| I think Indian Reservations have similar issues. They're
| "sovereign nations" in some sense, but the land is often
| owned by the US Federal Government, who doesn't like
| anyone doing things to it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-05 23:00 UTC)