: You might want to consider that the National Wildlife Refuges are funded
: primarly by taxes on hunting and fishing gear, and also consider that
: without the efforts of Ducks Unlimited, and the Federal Duck Stamp
: program, we would see few of the water fowl that are common each spring
: and fall. Hooks and Bullets do in fact pay for a large part of your
: outdoors experience. Not at all sorry about hopping on my soap box.

I'm well aware of how Pittman-Robertson funds are collected and managed,
and I've paid my share of the excise taxes every year since I was old
enough to get hunting and fishing licenses.

I also can support the Sierra Club's philosophy, which is hardly at
the extreme of American liberalism or of the environmental movement.
It wouldn't be even if all the Izaak-Walton-esque conflations about a
secret agenda were true. SC mainly connects donors with lobbyists
and funds a moderate number of research and public information
projects.

To the original question, my sense is that they cultivate an atmosphere
that's more suited to donors than to adventurers. I think a group like
the Nature Conservancy might have a broader base and a wider range of
activities.

This is all pretty far off topic, so I'll leave it for rebuttals and
go back to lurking.

Arlen