|David White wrote:
Uh, Mansfield has been on almost every single one of their Endangered lists.
I can hardly read any one of their quarterly magazines without hearing about the lignite mining that is the most serious threat to that battlefield. I've learned more about lignite mining from them than I ever cared to. They still saved 134 acres there.
I'm very close to this situation and nearly cancelled my CWPT membership this year over it, as it is; I cut it back to the minimum donation (instead as Old Sorrell suggested that budgeted money went to a grassroot.org and its very uphill battle against the man but that is an even longer topic). It is all lip service and no action on the part of CWPT. The original poster is correct they are concentrating on the east because they see that as most endangered. All well and good but not enough foresight IMO, because you end up paying Slaughter Pen prices for everything, where if you spread it out and acquired land before it is about to be developed you would get more bang for your buck.
As to the specifics of Mansfield, yes they bought some land a few years ago but as to the current crisis with the mining they will not provide a dime to help the legal action, only publicity. I don't think they have it on their endangered sites this year, maybe because it is too late.
Now why I'm mad at them, here we are fighting the mining company for using the mineral rights on the property they are leasing and meanwhile CWPT is leasing the mineral rights to the land they own in the area to other companies. No they aren't strip mining it, just getting natural gas from it. In some ways I'm ambivalent about that. On the bad side it is two faced to say its bad for the mining company to exploit the land, yet they are doing the same thing (even if it is not to the same degree). On the good side, it could be considered a wise thing to do, generate revenue to help with preservation efforts. My problem is the Mansfield revenues are buying Virginia land at the Slaughter Pen while Mansfield disappears and for that I am very angry.
How many acres have the locals helped save?
Doesn't this apply to the good folks in Virginia, most of the local authorities are the same no matter what their locale, they are looking at tax dollars and easy revenue versus strategically (sounds like the CWPT doesn't it?). Doesn't matter if they are in VA, LA, TX or any of the 47 others. In a place like LA it is a real up hill battle because there are mitigating factors like local poverty, extreme political corruption and Hurricane Katrina recovery that the good folks in Fredericksburg and VA don't have to contend with. That is why a national organization with the muscle of a CWPT should be stepping it up more there versus white collar Fredericksburg, just MO.
Lip service? To what end? Seems to me that a lot of places are endangered because the land simply isn't available because there is not a willing seller. If this mining company owns the land and doesn't want to sell it, other then going thru the county council to prevent certain zoning allowances, what else, pretell, can the CWPT do?
Personally I'd rather see places like the Slaughter Pen saved, than Mansfield and I'd bet most people would agree. Who's even heard of Mansfield? The major battlefields should get precedence.
And yes, I'd rather see money go to fight a casino at Gettysburg than see it go to legal action at a place like Mansfield, which doesn't even guarantee that even one acre of the land would be saved.
Sorry to hear that you are withholding much needed funds to protest the CWPT's work at Mansfield. Perhaps you could donate to something like SHAF or the Shenandoah Valley folks, who obviously have nothing to do with any decisions effecting Mansfield, LA. Do you think the CWPT is even aware as to why your giving has dropped off?
Last edited on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 04:25 pm by