No longer relevant.

Edited.

I'm pretty sure MP uses a Google (or other) targeted ad platform. What you see depends on your browser history, email, and whatever else can be mined from your machine. On my work computer I see all ads for National Instruments relays and PLC cards...

James M Schroeder wrote: I don't disagree, but I would assume (probably incorrectly) that website managers have the ability to decide block content from particular advertisers that they don't want. I'd further assume that MP's "outdoors" tag in web history helped trigger the Nature Conservancy targeting. I do see ads completely unrelated to climbing and the outdoors at times well, but this one threw me a bit.

That's asking for quite a bit of micromanagement from MP. What if I think company _______ is bad for climbing because ______? Even if they did make an avenue for such complaints, it would distract admins from making this web site accurate & jerk free.

You can certainly try to rile up an angry mob on MP to get administrators to change the rules for this particular case, but I'd be on the other side of that angry mob because 1) I like the Nature Conservancy (climbing isn't everything - I like pristine woods and untrammeled peaks as well) and 2) we all have bigger fish to fry.

Yes, we can block individual companies (we've blocked "Climbing Singles" for example), but I'm going to agree with Alex that we're not going to start down this path since someone will have a problem with everything eventually. And the NC, while hardly perfect, probably does a lot more good than bad.

And in some tiny tiny way, the NC has now supported climbing by posting an ad on MP - and if you click it, you will redirect a few pennies from their coffers to MP's!

To add to the devil's advocacy here: Why not let the Nature Conservancy spend their money on advertisements on a website whose core values are opposed to part of their mission.

I think a conservancy effort that limits climbing will fall on deaf ears here, so I wouldn't worry about it "turning" anyone. Let them spend their money to less avail, as it is seemingly in your interests.

Free climbing singles. This oppression will not stand man. How do you expect bouldering betties to find a man like me. You guys are messing with fate. And your jackboot big brother tactics are tantamount to internet stop and frisk. Where is the ACLU when you need em?

James M Schroeder wrote: The Nature Conservancy tends to have an anti-climbing stance.

I'm curious, where have they posed an anti-climbing stance?

Quote: "I'm curious, where have they posed an anti-climbing stance?"

James is correct, here in Wisconsin climbing is prohibited on their land. Clicky

-----------------------------------------------------------------
What You Cannot Do
The following activities are not permitted on Conservancy preserves:

Blah blah blah

•Rock or ice climbing

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's the same all over the country.

I actually donate to the Nature Conservancy. Great organization. I happen to be a close friend of one of their consulting ecologists. They put a lot of highly qualified effort into their land management strategies. You may not agree with all of their decisions, but the fact is they do a great service to those of us who appreciate the outdoors. Seriously, I'd hope MP users could find a more appropriate advertiser to complain about.

Nick Wilder wrote:Yes, we can block individual companies (we've blocked "Climbing Singles" for example)

YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG

Dave Wachter wrote:I actually donate to the Nature Conservancy. Great organization. I happen to be a close friend of one of their consulting ecologists. They put a lot of highly qualified effort into their land management strategies. You may not agree with all of their decisions, but the fact is they do a great service to those of us who appreciate the outdoors. Seriously, I'd hope MP users could find a more appropriate advertiser to complain about.

As the local Access Fund Regional Coordinator here in CT, I too have had nothing but negative interactions with the Nature Conservancy in CT. From requesting permission to clean graffiti that they will not on their property to climbing. They have always said NO and have never been willing to listen or work with the local community. I always thought they were great until I started to actually deal with them. Additionally, their director here in CT sits on a board of three people who have made it illegal to access 15,300 acres of state forest except for 1 narrow trail. 15,300 acres of public land and it's all basically completely illegal to even just walk on because of them. Sad.

From the Access Fund's website:

"AF [Access Fund] assisted The Nature Conservancy with funding towards the acquisition of Dugout Ranch, which provides access to many of Indian Creek's walls."

Well, there's this weird real estate deal involving David Letterman:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/c…

It doesn't seem like they were primarily concerned about conservation in this case.

They are rabid anti-climbing in RI from what I have seen. They want to buy some of my back acreage along a river and their anti-climbing stance and other shenanigans have not exactly made me keen to deal with them. It would be a strictly business reason if I sell anything to them. I am certainly not going to give them a special deal.

M Sprague wrote:They are rabid anti-climbing in RI from what I have seen. They want to buy some of my back acreage along a river and their anti-climbing stance and other shenanigans have not exactly made me keen to deal with them. It would be a strictly business reason if I sell anything to them. I am certainly not going to give them a special deal.

Mark, maybe you could leverage the sale of your acreage into a purchase of Lincoln Woods, with TNC "clos[ing] the gap" between buyer and seller, as they did at Martha's Vineyard.

Then we could all boulder in peace, and they could take the land without boulders on it.

Unfortunately the NC has had a negative impact in CA too. As others have said, it would seem that their general policy is to buy land and then make it illegal for humans to access it, much less use it.

Nick Wilder wrote:we've blocked "Climbing Singles" for example

lol... just out of curiosity, whats the rational behind that one??

oh no their director worked at Goldman Sachs? So he might actually know a thing or two about raising money and getting deals done? Holy shit, why aren't they hiring a frumpy 45 year old cat lady with a masters in public administration like all the other nonprofits?

Have you looked at the base of a crag lately? Climbing doesn't exactly enhance the landscape. If there are some places we can't go pack down the soil, pull vegetation, bolt-chop-rebolt-bitch-moan-wine-wimper-wobble-and-repeat so that the beasts and plants don't have to deal with it, then good.

Thanks for reminding me- I need to make my annual donation to NC.

germsauce wrote:oh no their director worked at Goldman Sachs?

And has been involved in questionable real estate deals in which other GS folks were involved and different standards applied then they usually adher to. I think that alone qualifies them for closer scrutiny in my book. Paulson another well known GS figure was involved in another large shady deal... do you remember that one? US Govt bails out GS via AIG. GS guys are notorious on wall street. I know, I sit on a trading desk all day.

You guys likely had fun today. They let you get on MP while you are trading? I thought I was bad, but I "work" for myself.

Morgan Patterson wrote: And has been involved in questionable real estate deals in which other GS folks were involved and different standards applied then they usually adher to. I think that alone qualifies them for closer scrutiny in my book. Paulson another well known GS figure was involved in another large shady deal... do you remember that one? US Govt bails out GS via AIG. GS guys are notorious on wall street. I know, I sit on a trading desk all day.

I spent 10 years as an on and off floor derivatives trader and I can certainly verify this statement about Goldman's reputation for being shady. Of course there may be no conspiracy, but when so many former GS execs end up in positions of power and influence at other institutions (the government heavily included), and their trading desks simultaneously generate suspicious amounts of alpha; one should probably wonder if all those tentacles might just be tipping the odds in GS's favor from time-to-time.