[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

BOUNCE nanf at actwin_com: Non-member submission from ["Merle G. McCartney" <Merle.G.McCartney at usa_dupont.com>] (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-nanf at actwin_com
To: owner-nanf at actwin_com
Subject: BOUNCE nanf at actwin_com:    Non-member submission from ["Merle G. McCartney" <Merle.G.McCartney at usa_dupont.com>]   

>From jwiegert at nexus_v-wave.com  Thu Apr 23 11:15:31 1998
Received: from gatekeeper.es.dupont.com (gatekeeper.es.dupont.com [192.26.233.2])
	by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12067
	for <NANF at actwin_com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wmvx06.lvs.dupont.com (wmvx06.lvs.dupont.com [52.99.203.3])
	by gatekeeper.es.dupont.com (8.9.0.Beta3/8.9.0.Beta3) with SMTP id LAA15766
	for <NANF at actwin_com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:16:22 -0400
Received: from mccartmg.wm.dupont.com by ldoc03.lvs.dupont.com with SMTP;
          Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:16:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:16:17 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD6EA9.3C185D40.Merle.G.McCartney at usa_dupont.com>
From: "Merle G. McCartney" <Merle.G.McCartney at usa_dupont.com>
To: "'robert a rice'" <robertrice at juno_com>
Cc: "'NANF at actwin_com'" <NANF at actwin_com>
Subject: RE: Native Fish Conservancy?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:16:16 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you have, somewhere in your various messages, told me how the NFC is 
different from NANFA, I still don't get it.  Sorry I'm a little slow on the 
uptake.

I'm guessing that you perceive the main difference to lie in the area of 
funding of conservation efforts, public awareness, and research.  So, back 
to the NANFA mission statement which I quote again, "..to increase 
appreciation of native species through observation, study, research, 
captive husbandry, and the restoration and improvement of their natural 
habitat; to assemble and distribute information...".    How is this 
different?  Is the NFC primarily a fund-raising organization that channels 
money into conservation projects (including habitat restorartion, captive 
breeding, education, etc.), whereas NANFA does not?  If so, since NANFA's 
mission includes nearly identical wording, why not push to amend NANFA's 
charter to accomodate this function.

To summarize my questions:
Is the principle focus of th NFC on fund raising - i.e., is that what 
distinguishes this organization from NANFA?

Why not modify NANFA's charter to accomodate the goals of the NFC? Why do 
we need two very similar organizations?

Finally, you remarked that the "Nature Conservancy would never support 
(financially speaking) a regional activity...".  I'm not sure what you had 
in mind here, but the local chapters of the Nature Conservancy that I've 
been associated with have all supported regional activities.  That's why 
they have local chapters.  Granted, they probably aren't going to pitch in 
to help bring a pond back to life in the middle of a subdivision.  Given 
their resource constraints, they go for the bigger picture.  So, is the 
role you envision for the NFC to pick up where the larger organizations 
leave off?

I hope my questions don't come across as criticism of the NFC attempt.  I 
think it's a valid proposition, but I also think it needs some serious work 
(be glad to help, by the way).   NANFA always struck me as a hobbiest 
organization at the core, with conservation interests.  I am more 
interested in a scientific/conservation organization at the core, with 
hobbiest interests.  Hopefully that is what you have in mind with the NFC - 
but some of the language leads me to think otherwise.

Merle McCartney