Nature conservancy of Canada

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Nature conservancy of Canada

Sep 20, 2020 | 06:42 1 So I have been doing a little research ...Did you know...

1. They were given 100 million in the last federal budget
2. They get money from provincial governments
3. They buy land and agregate it for conservation
4. They buy land from farmers using taxpayers money so farmers are competing against themselves for land...
5. They never sell land
6. Their pastures look like shit


I think they are the WE CHARITY of agriculture....an incredible scam....

ANd former politicians sit on their boards

Put Ducks Unlimited in there with them...just a scam ...

disclaimer : Not bitter about anything just stating facts

I wish people farmers and governments would quit supporting them.
Last edited by bucket; Sep 20, 2020 at 11:06.
Reply With Quote

  • Sep 20, 2020 | 07:11 2 The recent purchase of pasture around Buffalo Pound lake is odd....so the family sold to NCC and that purchase was funded by government. ...and yet there is no money for direct aid to farmers. ..

    NCC then got money from K+S for a feel good issue about using pasture to put their mine on....

    I don't know why farmers sell to NCC instead of asking government for the same funding they give to organizations like NCC or DU but it's a crock of shit what is going on....

    Wonder why there is trouble keeping young people here ...there is part of the problem...

    Making owners tenants or worse yet the next generation become serfs/peasants by supporting organizations like NCC

    Go look at the Green and white NCC signs on fence posts and see who is funding the purchases.....
    Last edited by bucket; Sep 20, 2020 at 07:15.
    Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 07:43 3 If the issue is access to land for farmers then the NCC and Ducks are only a small part of the problem. A much bigger problem is absentee investors with deep pockets and very large corporate farms that are very greedy and can out compete and displace smaller operations.

    If you are worried about taxpayer dollars subsidizing land purchases, its often very large farms that receive the majority of the ag subsidy dollars and this helps them takeover more and more land at the expense of smaller farms wanting more land.

    I see nothing wrong with land being set aside for conservation and habitat protection, especially if it is marginal for agriculture and of high value ecologically. It's in everybodys interest to take care of the environment and protect our natural resources for future generations. There has to be a balance of interests served. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 07:49 4 Wisehole are you really this uniformed? You don't get any subsidies? LMAO Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 07:57 5 Because you don't agree with me! hahahah

    Wisehole you must live a very sheltered life if you are so offended by other points of view! Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 07:59 6
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    So I have been doing a little research ...Did you know...

    1. They were given 100 million in the last federal budget
    2. They get money from provincial governments
    3. They buy land and agregate it for conservation
    4. They buy land from farmers using taxpayers money so farmers are competing against themselves for land...
    5. They never sell land
    6. Their pastures look like shit


    I think they are the WE CHARITY of agriculture....an incredible scam....

    ANd former politicians sit on their boards

    Put Ducks Unlimited in their with them...just a scam ...

    disclaimer : Not bitter about anything just stating facts

    I wish people farmers and governments would quit supporting them.
    And what is happening here in Ontario is that these lands then come with "buffer zones" around them that place restrictions on the adjacent private property landowner, limiting what he or she can do on their own property.

    This is one of the worst Trojan Horses this country has seen. Brought to you by the U.N. Sock puppet prime Minstrel.

    Paid for with your tax dollars.

    With ZERO transparency.

    It is a major, foundational component of an initiative will lead to the "re-wilding" of major pieces of Canada's landscape.

    It will result in the return of huge parcels of farmland to a wild and unproductive "natural" state.

    Just another segment of the elites of this world making the globe into their totalitarian playground. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 08:01 7
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    If the issue is access to land for farmers then the NCC and Ducks are only a small part of the problem. A much bigger problem is absentee investors with deep pockets and very large corporate farms that are very greedy and can out compete and displace smaller operations.

    If you are worried about taxpayer dollars subsidizing land purchases, its often very large farms that receive the majority of the ag subsidy dollars and this helps them takeover more and more land at the expense of smaller farms wanting more land.

    I see nothing wrong with land being set aside for conservation and habitat protection, especially if it is marginal for agriculture and of high value ecologically. It's in everybodys interest to take care of the environment and protect our natural resources for future generations. There has to be a balance of interests served.

    The bolded statement .... why not just give money to farmers directly to maintain ownership instead of giving it to NCC and others to buy the land from farmers....then lease it back and allow the investor like NCC to use the gains to only their benefit as opposed to allowing the the original owner do the same thing? Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 08:08 8 If farmers get money for Conservation it will come with rules and restrictions. Many farmers seem adverse to such restrictions in perpetuity. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 08:16 9
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    If farmers get money for Conservation it will come with rules and restrictions. Many farmers seem adverse to such restrictions in perpetuity.
    I must be the exception.....I have pasture right beside one of these NCC projects....my cows would starve on them and I get the benefit of game birds and deer and my cows are just fine...

    Matter of fact I approached the NCC people checking their pastures and said they were doing a shit job...and told them to compare to mine....alll they said was they were happy with their pasture...I asked where are the birds and other wildlife with no cover????

    They are just stupid people...
    Last edited by bucket; Sep 20, 2020 at 08:20.
    Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 08:33 10 That Is a management issue not an issue of principle. That can be corrected. There are lots of examples of private landowners badly managing pastures. Are you in favour of enforcing management rules on private land owners? NCC is just another private land owner with different objectives.

    I have no problem with farmers receiving support for conservation. There is lots of support for ALUS.

    In some European countries you don't get subsidies unless you follow the environmental rules. Its the carrot approach.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 20, 2020 at 08:38.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 08:39 11
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    That a management issue not an issue of principle. That can be corrected.

    I have no problem with farmers receiving support for conservation. There is lots of support for ALUS.

    In some European countries you don't get subsidies unless you follow the environmental rules. Its the carrot approach.
    The problem is most guys are doing the same thing that NCC does but they receive no funding....

    Like my example ....while NCC received money from the provincial government through the environment ministery to buy land and do their nonsense conservation....I am doing a better job and receive nothing....and a lot of ranchers are in the same boat... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 08:44 12
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    That Is a management issue not an issue of principle. That can be corrected. There are lots of examples of private landowners badly managing pastures. Are you in favour of enforcing management rules on private land owners? NCC is just another private land owner with different objectives.

    I have no problem with farmers receiving support for conservation. There is lots of support for ALUS.

    In some European countries you don't get subsidies unless you follow the environmental rules. Its the carrot approach.
    ALUS is a weston family initiative doing the same as NCC ...You realize the Westons stole billions in price fixing of bread.

    Its like the WE charity nonsense....politicians support them for eventual backdoor repayment.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 09:00 13 I think the bigger problem is there is only tepid support for conservation amongst most farmers. In fact many are hostile.

    Leaving conservation up to farmers with no rules and no support won’t work. The other option is for governments to take it over and do it themselves. But governments are not that interested if there is a political price to pay.

    It’s important not to lump all conservation organizations and efforts together as all bad. Fix the ones that are not working well and start supporting farmers for conservation with rules and enforcement. What other options should we consider?

    You are in favour of a significant conservation effort and designating conservation lands? Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 09:17 14 You hit on something there chuck in the first sentence that I think is pertinent. Not many farmers left that leave habitat, even a little bit, let alone a lot. I have several hundred acres of prime habitat. I don’t expect payment to leave it like it is, it is just how I feel about conservation. All I expect is some great meat every year, mushrooms, berries, hazelnuts etc.

    I am going to be an island eventually, in a region that has been pushed flat at an increasing rate lately. I do think that land like that will have high value as a showcase of what the area used to look like...

    Majority of farmers aren’t really strong habitat conservationists. Which is fine and dandy. Just please stop hassling me to hunt on my land! I didn’t leave the trees for the tree pushers to hunt on, that’s for certain. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 09:17 15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    I think the bigger problem is there is only tepid support for conservation amongst most farmers. In fact many are hostile.

    Leaving conservation up to farmers with no rules and no support won’t work. The other option is for governments to take it over and do it themselves. But governments are not that interested if there is a political price to pay.

    It’s important not to lump all conservation organizations and efforts together as all bad. Fix the ones that are not working well and start supporting farmers for conservation with rules and enforcement. What other options should we consider?

    You are in favour of a significant conservation effort and designating conservation lands?
    I am in favor of being the same as NCC for my efforts....

    And I would be happy to be on a grading scale....if I am doing things right then I get paid ...if I am missing a couple of grading factors ....I get discounted until I fix it...

    I am a conservationist....but on my terms ....but it's better for my cattle herd which in turn should be making me money....

    you see where I am going with this? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 09:25 16 The problem with governments getting involved, is the inevitable policy creep.

    We have a quarter with a creek, the county designated the portion around the creek as an environmental reserve before we bought it. That means no farming, no pasturing, no tree cutting, no improvements, no buildings, just let it grow into a fire hazard. The remainder of the property is very productive farmland. And that is fine, the creek requires protection. It is a reasonable compromise.
    Now, a group of fisherman have a report out and are lobbying the county for more protection. One of their recommendations is to extend the policies of that environmental reserve out to almost 2 km. That would make this entire quarter worthless, another entire quarter of ours same( which is all high land), another rented quarter or two the same. And we have 4 more quarters right on the edge of that propsed reserve that with some more policy creep could find themselves in the same situation. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 09:32 17
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    The problem with governments getting involved, is the inevitable policy creep.

    We have a quarter with a creek, the county designated the portion around the creek as an environmental reserve before we bought it. That means no farming, no pasturing, no tree cutting, no improvements, no buildings, just let it grow into a fire hazard. The remainder of the property is very productive farmland. And that is fine, the creek requires protection. It is a reasonable compromise.
    Now, a group of fisherman have a report out and are lobbying the county for more protection. One of their recommendations is to extend the policies of that environmental reserve out to almost 2 km. That would make this entire quarter worthless, another entire quarter of ours same( which is all high land), another rented quarter or two the same. And we have 4 more quarters right on the edge of that propsed reserve that with some more policy creep could find themselves in the same situation.

    Yup I probably shouldn't graze to the creek but ducks unlimited dry the creek bed up and I like to graze it...if they want me to not graze it and fence it out ...well I need to be paid to stay out of the spring flood zone which is a substantial amount of acres. ... Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 09:43 18 I think there is a lag time between habitat destruction and wildlife population decline, but it is real.

    Some species adapt and some can't. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 10:04 19
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    That Is a management issue not an issue of principle. That can be corrected. There are lots of examples of private landowners badly managing pastures. Are you in favour of enforcing management rules on private land owners? NCC is just another private land owner with different objectives.

    I have no problem with farmers receiving support for conservation. There is lots of support for ALUS.

    In some European countries you don't get subsidies unless you follow the environmental rules. Its the carrot approach.
    So is the police issue and BLM just a management issue and can be corrected?
    Last edited by flea beetle; Sep 20, 2020 at 10:13.
    Reply With Quote

  • Sep 20, 2020 | 10:33 20
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    I think there is a lag time between habitat destruction and wildlife population decline, but it is real.

    Some species adapt and some can't.
    And one man's habitat destruction is another animals new garden of eden.
    If we travel west into the mountain parks, guaranteed to see more, far far more big game on the way past our own crop land than in the entire rest of the trip. Turns out there isn't much worth eating in a mature overgrown forest with no room for grass, but a canola crop is the height of luxury for a deer or moose.

    The creek mentioned above, turns out the fish they are trying to protect were stocked there in the 30's. What's natural? Was that habitat destruction for some other species? Reply With Quote

  • Sep 20, 2020 | 11:12 21
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Yup I probably shouldn't graze to the creek but ducks unlimited dry the creek bed up and I like to graze it...if they want me to not graze it and fence it out ...well I need to be paid to stay out of the spring flood zone which is a substantial amount of acres. ...
    I see lots of people grazing creek areas and causing lots of habitat loss in riparian areas and affecting water quality. We still have lots of people winter feeding near rivers and creeks which is even worse. There was money available for fencing riparian areas and putting in water systems under the environmental farm programs. Lots of farmers did the right thing and others not so much. I think the assumption is that because you own the land while you are alive you can do whatever you want with it, is wrong and short sighted. Especially when the impacts affect many others and can lead to long term negative impacts. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 11:14 22
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    I think there is a lag time between habitat destruction and wildlife population decline, but it is real.

    Some species adapt and some can't.
    No loss of population they just move to better managed pastures like my neighbors cows .... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 11:17 23
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    And one man's habitat destruction is another animals new garden of eden.
    If we travel west into the mountain parks, guaranteed to see more, far far more big game on the way past our own crop land than in the entire rest of the trip. Turns out there isn't much worth eating in a mature overgrown forest with no room for grass, but a canola crop is the height of luxury for a deer or moose.

    The creek mentioned above, turns out the fish they are trying to protect were stocked there in the 30's. What's natural? Was that habitat destruction for some other species?
    Except it’s not up to you or I to decide what is the right way to manage what is a public resource and A shared environment. That’s the responsibility of all stakeholders not just landowners. That’s why we have federal, provincial rules and regulations and municipal bylaws. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 11:21 24 Burrowing owls, "bush" rabbits, other ground nesting birds. Even fewer jack rabbits here than before. Clear bush and fewer tree nesting raptors. Deer have held up quite well...too well actually lately. More moose here than ever before, now kinda permanent. Mink mostly unseen. Muskrat come and go with water levels. Really no beaver here. I think tree nesting birds really have declined here. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 11:36 25
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Except it’s not up to you or I to decide what is the right way to manage what is a public resource and A shared environment. That’s the responsibility of all stakeholders not just landowners. That’s why we have federal, provincial rules and regulations and municipal bylaws.
    As I have said ...NCC is doing a shit job of pasture management. ..so who is overseeing them? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 11:36 26
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Except it’s not up to you or I to decide what is the right way to manage what is a public resource and A shared environment. That’s the responsibility of all stakeholders not just landowners. That’s why we have federal, provincial rules and regulations and municipal bylaws.
    As I have said ...NCC is doing a shit job of pasture management. ..so who is overseeing them? Especially when they are receiving government money. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 20, 2020 | 11:38 27 But I really like sparrows and pigeons. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 11:46 28 I think that this is the outfit that trying to buy up land to have a corridor between the riding mountain park and the duck mountain park for wildlife travel. I call it the TB highway, go figure. Reply With Quote
    Sep 20, 2020 | 18:01 29
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    As I have said ...NCC is doing a shit job of pasture management. ..so who is overseeing them? Especially when they are receiving government money.
    You make very valid points Bucket. This is another example of farmers having to compete with their own taxes they paid. Going by chuck’s strong support we know it won’t help farmers and agriculture. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 20, 2020 | 18:06 30
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Because you don't agree with me! hahahah

    Wisehole you must live a very sheltered life if you are so offended by other points of view!
    That’s rich coming from you , 🤔 Reply With Quote