In spite of the tin foil hat accusers that Agenda 21 doesn't exist, here is former Vice President, and traitor to the United States, talking about it and how the world could now see themselves as a "single community of nations", "making up a global civilization". AKA signing our sovereignty away. In spite of his claims that the Senate holds responsibility for signing treaties, Agenda 21 was never signed by the Senate, yet it was implemented.
Agenda 21, known as Sustainable Development, was implemented by WJ Clinton in 1993 via his President's Council on Sustainable Development. Here he is talking about it.
Here is Nancy Pelosi promoting the adoption of Agenda 21.
Now 26 years later, we have been destroyed as a Republic, there is no longer a representative government, but rather an extension of our government by non-governmental organizations and the implementation of UN objectives, an oligarchy, funded by the wealthy. Until this is eliminated, we will continue on the downward path of globalization by the UN, and a complete loss of our freedom.
It is so nice to know what our future holds for us, instead of having to worry about it, the United Nations (UN) has it all figured out through their corporate partnerships.
The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) originally created the Vision 2050 document which can be downloaded here. Recently however, because of all the progress they have made in taking over the world, they had a "refresh", but they won't allow anyone to access it unless they are a member. To tantalize those of us who are of no importance, they did put out a brochure on the refresh. Below is an image of how the UN plans to govern the world that reflects their Vision 2050 refresh. Sit back, relax, you will be taken care of, compliments of the UN.
With the slow death of illegal Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC), the regrouping of the organizations that comprised LCCs, and new funding from foundations for continued work, the pursuit of taking land continues.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) was established in 1984 and is comprised of Governors from the western half of the United States including 19 states and 3 US territories. Their mission includes addressing policy and governance issues, advancing "the role of western states in the federal government", and strengthening social and economic factors in the region, including developing policy on natural resources, and the environment.
WGA creates a multitude of "resolutions" and "initiatives", one of which cannot be found on their website, the 2008 Wildlife Corridors Initiative. The initiative eventually established the Western Wildlife Habitat Council, which was responsible for creating the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) for data collection. Another tool for data collection by this initiative was the Decision Support System that maps all layers of the environment. Just a brief summary, all of this established the framework for non-governmental organization (NGO) objectives to justify the creation of wildife and other migratory corridors, identifying land for connectivity conservation, which ultimately leads to land that cannot be used and is government controlled.
This activity was accomplished without any voice from Idaho citizens. Does anyone remember these activities being brought to Idahoans for consideration, or any legislation for the same? Without going into depth on regionalism, this whole scenario is one fine example of how regionalism works and why it is so evil. Regionalism is a group of unelected individuals making decisions that bypass our representative government at all levels. This conglomerate of Governors, with their "collaborators", have created, built upon, and established policy and direction for states to meet NGO objectives, without any citizen involvement. It is also an absolute erasure of jurisdictional boundaries. For those not familiar with regionalism, better start understanding this is how our government now works, not through representation or as a Republic.
Fast forward to 2019. In the years since 2008, the WGA, federal government, and NGOs have collectively created the framework for migratory corridors, and now all of it just needs to be executed. A celebratory love fest of accomplishments was recently held through the WGA Roundtable.
While several issues were part of the 2019 WGA Western Working Lands Roundtable, only one will be the focus here, Migration Corridors. In each of the issue areas it should be noted the Roundtable consisted only of NGOs and several state and federal agencies, with no citizen representation. That is how regionalism works, and NGOs are gearing up for the assault on state legislators to advance their objectives.
The Migration Corridors panel members included Jim Heffelfinger, Arizona Game & Fish; Paul Ulrich, Jonah Energy, who is also a Nature Conservancy trustee; Matthew Skroch. Pew Charitable Trusts; and David Willms, National Wildlife Federation (NWF). While the video is worth watching, here are some highlights.
The panel essentially described how collared wildlife were used to identify the intensity of where migratory corridors exist, subsequently creating and funding "mapping teams" that have been "embedded" in each state to identify corridors. "Partnerships" between states, federal agencies, NGOs, and industry were emphasized with a paltry nod to involving more land owners. Exaggerated numbers of wildlife vehicle collisions were given for justification of using transportation as a way in which to improve wildlife connectivity. It wasn't just about wildlife corridors however, there was also emphasis on habitat that is needed for wildlife survival. Bottom line on all of this, the agenda has already been predetermined and set.
One of the most pathetic parts was David Willms stating we "didn't know migration routes existed until recently". What rock has he been living under? Ask any person who lives in more rural areas when wildlife migrate and they can tell you the species, time of year, and where. Since NWF is an United Nations NGO, and participant, Mr. Willms presentation was dripping with UN ideology pointing out corridors were an economic and "social responsibility" issue for "future generations". He also claimed "wildlife belong to everybody", "tourists come from all over the world to see wildlife", and world wildlife populations have decreased "50%". The Sage Grouse initiative was cited by Mr. Willms as the "blueprint" for corridors as it protected the habitat, stating it was a success. Perhaps he doesn't understand that poor land management as a result of that initiative resulted in the Soda Fire, destroying thousands of acres of land, not to mention the habitat and the grouse. To suggest this as a blueprint for future corridors is reprehensible, and a ominous threat to Idaho.
During the Roundtable on Coordination Between Federal Agencies, Kristin Thomasgard-Spence from the Department of Defense described their Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program (REPI) which buys land easements around military installations, citing "encroachment" as interfering with training. Not to be left out, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services has their own land acquisition program (Pg LA-4), and recently published a federal register notice to collect private data on land owners, including financial information and social security numbers, to be used for future land acquisitions. Of interest also is the panel discussion on Natural Resource Data Management and Landowner Privacy, which included the UN NGO Environmental Defense Fund, discussing the "mistrust" of land owners sharing information about their land, but once "relationships" are developed what wonderful work they can accomplish together. Landowners beware, don't fall for it, don't allow them on your property for data collection, and don't become friends with them.
They aren't fooling anyone, no matter how they fluff it, the goal is taking as much land as possible for government and NGO control.
NGOs are reorganizing, one of which is the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), having now become "global" with Idaho as a target, and openly admitting to their UN involvement. CLLC recently announced their partnership with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL). This partnership includes Idaho legislators who can be found here. The CLLC goal is "developing legal policies and provisions to advance corridors and connectivity conservation areas at the international, federal, state, and local level." Get to know those Idaho legislators who are involved in this.
The destruction of our Republic with regionalism was given to us by WJ Clinton in 1993 with the establishment of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) which implemented Agenda 21. Chapter 5 and 4 are rife with NGO and regional collaboration. Federal and state governments, with UN created NGOs, are ONE, a trinity, blessing us by bestowing their gifts of taking more land for greater control. There will never be ANY resolution to ANY land issue until this is exposed, confronted, and eliminated.
A very clear picture is described here about one agenda, how it began, its progression, who is involved, and how it is being accomplished. This is only a small slice of one agenda, there are a malignancy of others. The agenda is set, this is what they are doing, and NOTHING will change until Idahoans awaken to that fact. It is not NGOs, the federal government, or state legislators. It is these three groups working together against you, an oligarchy, that has already become YOUR government, and will continue to do so. It is time to stop sitting back and waiting to see what will be done to us next. Idaho is facing an even more ominous future if nothing is done to address the source of this problem.
While George Soros is known to heavily fund progressive agendas, there is another billionaire whose goal is to fund environmental causes, Hansjörg Wyss. A native of Switzerland who now lives in Wilson, Wyoming, Mr. Wyss made his fortune in medical research and his medical device manufacturer Synthes.
Mr. Wyss created the Wyss Foundation for philanthropy, conserving land as a primary focus, and millions of dollars have been given to non-governmental organizations (NGO) for that purpose. So invested in this goal, last year Mr. Wyss dedicated $1 billion to save the earth through his Wyss Campaign for Nature program. The end objective is to "...help conserve 30% of the planet by 2030"...with "...lands and waters..." protected best through national parks and wildlife refuges. Under the falsehood that Mr. Wyss claims this protection agenda is best if "driven by folks who live in these communities", he is actually referring to all the minion NGOs that are recipients of his money. Wanting to stay in the action, Mr. Wyss himself is on the governing council of the Wilderness Society.
What does this have to do with Idaho? The stated Wyss Foundation purpose is giving "donations to grassroots organizations that work to protect open spaces on public and private lands" in the United States, including the Rocky Mountains. Hmm, that makes Idaho a primary target. All of the following NGOs, along with many others not mentioned, received money from the Wyss Foundation for that purpose.
It is always fun to find out what is really happening by looking at tax forms. In this case, the Wyss Foundation tax forms reveal interesting information. Most of the foundation tax forms show heavy investments in all years for profit, and list assets over $2 billion dollars from at least 2014.
As early as 2001, the Idaho Conservation League (ICL) received a $75,000 donation as seen in the Wyss 2001 tax form. Another benefactor was the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), known for targeting Idaho land for protection, in the amount of $100,000. The Nature Conservancy of Idaho received $30,000, and the Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA) located in Boise received $40,000. While the WWA presents itself as an advocate of snowmobiling, it is really about advancing the dictatorship of where snowmobiling is allowed, and influencing forest service decisions for non-use. WWA is also a partner with ICL and corporations,
During the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, ICL received a total of $1,189,000 in donations while GYC acquired $1,155,600. In 2008, the Bureau of Land Management even received a donation of $999,000. Federal agencies can accept donations? Multiple other NGOs received donations during these and the following years.
In 2010, the Wyss foundation lists total assets over $136 million. ICL received $202,800 and the GYC $75,000. A $4 million plus loan was given to Western Rivers Conservancy for land acquisition, having succeeded in past acquisitions along the Salmon river, and having current Idaho targets for acquisition. Remembering The Nature Conservancy (TNC) business is land acquisition through conservation easements, and who are very active in Idaho, an astonishing amount of $14,442,400 was given to The Nature Conservancy of Montana.
By 2014 net assets for the Wyss foundation were over $2 billion. ICL benefited in the amount of $190,000, GYC $127,800. Western Rivers Conservancy received an alarming $6,100,000. The Trust for Pubic Land took a loan from the foundation for $906,000, in which the Bureau of Land Management partners for purchasing land for "recreational" access, or retiring resource extraction. TNC received a donation of $44 million!
2015 and 2016 donations from Wyss included Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and Trout Unlimited, each receiving $52, 800. Mr. Wyss must believe in donation recipient equality to some degree, but other NGOs received so much more.
In 2015, the Wyss tax form lists the two largest program related investments made by the foundation were in conservation land holdings for over $76 million. TNC received a whopping $9,237,734,000, Trout Unlimited $250,o0o, and the Western Rivers Conservancy $1 million. Looks like there was not enough money left for ICL or GYC this year.
According to the Wyss 2016 tax form, ICL was given $177,600. The 2016 tax form on the ICL website, dated 10/1/16 to 9/30/17, lists the Wyss donation as $125,000, with large contributions from other foundations. For the ICL listed 2015 tax year, 10/1/15 to 9/30/16, there is no listing of contributions by Wyss or other foundations. To validate the intertwined relationship, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Program Director Kim Trotter is listed as one of the a ICL Directors.
In 2016, TNC held loans of over $4 million dollars for inholding acquisition. Basically inholdings are private land near wilderness areas that "fragment" federal ownership, so the land is bought to eliminate the fragmentation, making federal land ownership more seamless. A full explanation on wilderness inholdings can be found here. That's right, a way in which to beef up federal land ownership, but this is not to suggest why TNC inholdings are acquired or how they are used. However, land bought by TNC through Wyss donations is then owned by Wyss, or sold to the federal government.
In 2017, with assets over $2 billion dollars and heavy investments for profit, with a couple TNC loans amounting to over $3 million dollars for land acquisitions, the Wyss tax form lacks in individual contributions made to NGOs. The 2017 tax form isn't available on the ICL website and tax forms prior to 2014 have to be requested. What are they hiding?
For Idahoans who are members of ICL, they might be interested to know ICL is selling Idaho out to to a foundation that wants to do nothing more than fund land takeovers. More appalling is the amount of money being poured into multiple NGOs for the same purpose, provided by a narcissistic man who believes he can own the planet, and our government doing the same.
For these NGOs that tout the need to protect land for "future generations", this concept is not original. America's founders understood man's greed and built our Republic on a foundation that was intended to protect our freedom and property rights. It is time for all Idahoans to meet with their county and state representatives and create laws that protect Idaho land from these threats. Don't squander the gift we were given, rather make good use of it.
Although not completely confirmed, it appears the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) may be on the way out, partially due to lack of continued funding. In a scramble, how will these partnerships between non-governmental organizations (NGO), federal agencies, state agencies, and land trusts continue as a large network to accomplish their large landscape conservation goals?
There are several organizations picking up the pieces and their amassing may be a bigger threat to us than the LCCs. They are reorganizing and in doing so are becoming more aggressive. Everyone needs to become familiar with these organizations, where they do their work, their goals, and who the individual players are.
One of the most concerning is the Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC). Partners include the usual, federal agencies, Western Governor's Association (WGA), large NGOs, even the United Nations (UN). At the helm is Director Gary Tabor, an IUCN participant, Senior Conservationist Rob Ament, and Renee Callahan who promotes public policy. Because public funding for LCCs is drying up, CLLC has now created a "fiscally sponsored" project, the "catalyst fund" to bring in those desperately needed dollars.
Although the catalyst fund was set up by the Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC), Jonathan Peterson from the CLLC is the fund manager. The NLC coordinating committee includes members from the Heart of the Rockies, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), National Park Service, Nature Conservancy, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Wildlands Network, land trusts, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, and Gary Tabor. A full list of all NLC partners can be found here, and it ain't pretty. Suffice to say, both CLLC and NLC are pretty much the same individuals and groups.
The catalyst fund is a "five-year national grant program to "accelerate the pace and practice of collaborative conservation at the landscape scale", funded by foundations. While they claim land conservation is "community-grounded", it is well known they mean their NGO partners, not local citizens, and "building capacity" is meant to increase their strength in numbers.
Led by Rob Ament, CLLC has an even more aggressive plan, targeting state legislators and agencies. In order to advance their, and other NGO connectivity goals, the target will be integrating their wildlife corridor agenda into legislation and policy. The WGA already conspired against us with the 2008 Wildlife Corridor Initiative, being used by the CLLC as one justification for their corridor agenda. And why wouldn't they, CLLC served on the WGA working policy groups that led to wildlife policy initiatives in 2010 and 2013, with multiple other NGOs serving as part of the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (pg 8) for initiative implementation. Data collection and mapping were also initiated as part of the agenda. Wildlife corridors are not the end to the saga, eventually there will be mandates for ecological corridors, biodiversity corridors, habitat corridors, riparian corridors, practically any excuse to create one, which will eventually suck up all land for restricted or banned use. In other words, control over land use, and people.
Returning to the Wildlife Connectivity document, CLLC has developed strategies for integration of their objectives into state legislation and policy. The truth is, CLLC has already decided where these wildlife corridors should be in Idaho and will lobby for the appropriate legislation, as well as having their Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) buddies put them into policy. On page 2 is a map of priority areas, one of which is the US 20/SH87 Complex, located in Island Park (IP), Idaho. In 2016, Y2Y came in full bore with their front group to have three wildlife overpasses built at Targhee Pass based on false wildlife vehicle collision data, but IP citizens fought back, exposed the Y2Y agenda for corridors and connectivity, their embedded relationship with IDFG and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and how the overpass decision was pre-determined. In the most recent Environmental Assessment, the overpasses will not be built. Idahoans in other priority areas are encouraged to take note, the same will be tried in your area. As can be seen, attempts to create wildlife corridors are already being conducted.
There is nothing in the IDFG 2018-2021 Strategic plan for wildlife corridors or connectivity, this is one policy CLLC will want changed, along with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) for integration of wildlife corridors. Following are a few of those CLLC strategies.
"Delegate a state agency to develop...a wildlife corridor identification process, using "best available science" for criteria. As previously noted CLLC has already identified the corridors and developed their science for identification, it is already a done deal. IDFG employee Gregg Servheen, Wildlife Program Coordinator, has been in on this from the beginning, to suggest delegating a state agency for this agenda is ludicrous. NGOs will lobby legislators to "establish state policy to guide the management of identified corridors". But as seen above, there will be no need for guidance, it will be convincing legislators to put their already determined management into legislation.
"The state agency responsible for this program should have the autonomy to evaluate and apply site-specific management and work cooperatively with stakeholders. In addition to state agency-initiated corridor identification, the legislation might also include a process for the public to submit a petition to designate a corridor." IDFG will be the state agency since they are already involved, and are already autonomous as an executive agency overseen by a Governor appointed commission. Since wildlife have already been "...declared to be the property of the state of Idaho", that leaves Idahoans out of any decisions. The petition rubbish is for NGO members to create, giving a false appearance that there is public support for this corridor agenda. It has been done by them before on other issues, and is another reason for the capacity building.
"Legislators can require relevant state agencies to conduct statewide connectivity analyses using the best available science." Connectivity studies have already been conducted on wildlife linkage areas on Idaho roads and by American Wildlands. Wildlife corridors are used as linkage points between existing protected areas for connectivity.
"State legislation could include a provision that directs a state’s wildlife authority responsible for the SWAP to develop a revision that formally recognizes habitat connectivity as a priority as well as includes actionable management items to identify and conserve wildlife corridors." CLLC knows dang well IDFG is responsible for SWAP which is considered a "living" document that can be updated as new data becomes available, how convenient for the CLLC agenda. While connectivity is currently addressed in different SWAP sections, it is yet to be a priority, which is a CLLC goal.
"State agencies governing the management of wildlife, transportation, and energy should be required to develop BMPs for habitat connectivity. In areas where habitat corridors have been identified, these BMPs should be legally binding to ensure that habitat connectivity and wildlife movement are preserved." "State legislators could direct relevant state agencies to develop BMPs to protect habitat connectivity and wildlife movement for all activities permitted on state lands that are likely to otherwise result in environmental harm." Another area that has already been implemented between IDFG and ITD, and enhanced through the ITD Ecological approach agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, which just happens to be a CLLC partner as well. Once again Rob Ament and Gregg Servheen are involved.
"There are many potential policy approaches to encouraging conservation action on private lands. The most well-known approach is a conservation easement...". Within the McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor aggressive action has already taken land for easements by federal and Idaho agencies in partnerships with NGOs. Forever prohibiting land use is the goal with wildlife corridors.
"Authorize state agencies to institute public-private partnerships...fund state programs to engage citizens in citizen-science projects...that need additional data for decision-making around connectivity policymaking...request information from citizens...to help inform where wildlife corridors exist...". IDFG is already moving towards corporatism, aided by federal legislation. The "citizen-science" actually references the IDFG Idaho Master Naturalist program which partners with Y2Y, and since the data has already been collected for connectivity corridor linkages, the stage has been set to feed it to legislators. Other data collection is already in place through the IFWIS, a member of NatureServe, with a special category for land management and conservation which is not accessible to the general public. The Great Northern LCC already created the Decision Support System (DSS) called Data Basin, in which Gregg Servheen participated with his "best science".
There is a rather large section in the connectivity document for wildlife corridor funding through general fund appropriations, constitutional amendments, federal and foundation initiatives, and conservation banking, claiming that all of this enjoys "wide citizen support". They mean themselves.
In addition to analyzing how he could interject his agenda into federal policy, Rob Ament also reviewed federal policy progress for connectivity. Since there is increasing federal support for wildlife corridors via Sec. Zinke Secretarial Order 3362, and the reintroduced Wildlife Corridor Act, Mr. Ament may be right. The Sierra Club helped write the legislation, along with other NGO support (Y2Y, ICL, GYC among them).
The truth is, CLLC and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) have already created the "best science" to justify where wildlife corridors should be in Idaho, it is just a matter of telling legislators and IDFG where they want them, without consideration of Idaho citizens, or local jurisdictional authority. However, since IDFG was paid to inform the public, one should assume Idahoans already know. Mentioned in the NWF document are "Proposed wildlife crossings", one way in which corridors can be created using exaggerated wildlife vehicle collision data.
It is never about land protection or conservation, it is about taking control over land use. Citizens in Ventura, California understand this as they fought land use restrictions with their wildlife corridor, and lost. Not only do their restrictions involve rezoning 30% of land, it also devalues the land, destroys the agriculture sector, and increases fire risks. For all Idahoans, let this be a lesson to learn if wildlife corridors are imposed, the same set up for this garbage is in play here.
Idaho does have a statute that is suppose to protect private property rights in local land use planning, however NGOs are already taking a look at local zoning and land use ordinances for conservation design changes. Idahoans may want to consider working with county commissioners to integrate a ban on wildlife corridor designation in local land use policies before the NGOs get to them.
Potential NGO lobbyists for this CLLC agenda include Rialin Flores, Conservation Voters for Idaho; Suzanne Stone, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW); Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League (ICL); Brian Brooks, Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF); Willam Whelan, The Nature Conservancy (TNC); and Michael Gibson, Trout Unlimited (TU), all of which, except one, are Y2Y partners, which partners with CLLC.
In 2015, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) launched the connectivity conservation project, "which will provide policy and legislative tools and resources to national governments, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders." A UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) was set up with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA), a CLLC partner. Their partners include "national governments", but who needs that partnership when you have Gary Tabor doing the work for them at a state level.
The Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group, of which CLLC provides support along with the IUCN, wants to protect 50% of natures land mass, interfere with transportation projects to execute their goals with Rob Ament as a member of the working group, all the while using corridors for connectivity. Remembering CLLC Director Gary Tabor is an IUCN member, he is also Vice Chair of the WCPA Connectivity Conservation Working Group, bringing the UN right to your front door. These facts are why the CLLC and NLC regrouping is more threatening to us than the LCCs.
Yep, no need to worry folks, just sit back and relax. The UN, NGOs, individuals, and the government have this all figured out for you, where you can live. how you can use your private property, and how Idaho should be reconfigured for animals. Representation by local officials is no longer needed so don't worry about practicing self-governance, or functioning as a Republic, there is no conspiratorial shadow government operating here, or a deep state. Local county authority over land use has and will continue to be completely obliterated by these well thought out agendas, especially when the legislature has been infiltrated by NGO representatives. It is all transparent.
Perhaps we would all be wise to remember the sacrifices made by our Founders, who so deeply understood tyrannical governments, and the price of freedom. At what cost is freedom?
The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREP) has been reintroduced by a New York representative for the seventh time in Congress, and has been referred to the Natural Resources Committee. This bill, H.R. 1321, is another attempt at taking more land away from Idaho citizens for use and designating it as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, biological connecting corridors, and for other purposes. Claiming that "wildlife treasures of the Northern Rockies are of international significance", the standard environmental group mantra is given that "fragmentation" of wildlife occurs due to roads, harvesting, and mining, all horse pucky. No international significance exists when it comes to Idaho land, it belongs to us.
In the bill text, land is divided up into five ecosystems but the bill has nothing to do with ecosystem protection, it is about taking land. Each ecosystem includes Idaho national forests, and all are impacted. Affected areas incorporate land and creeks into currently existing designated wilderness areas and national forests, designate new wilderness areas into what is called the "National Wilderness Preservation System", take land for "biological connecting corridors", all of the areas being too exhaustive to list here. Also defined is "no new road construction or reconstruction, or timber harvest (except firewood gathering) shall be allowed in the lands". Everyone should take the time to see how their own particular area would be affected.
One non-governmental organization (NGO) that has put much effort into increasing federally protected land is the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), which covers the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Greater Salmon/Selway Ecosystem, both listed in the bill. GYC is out of Bozeman, Montana, but is also registered in Idaho. Kathy Rinaldi is the Idaho Conservation Coordinator for GYC, and Allison Michalski is the Idaho Conservation Associate. Their focus is "protecting" lands in Idaho from eastern Idaho through the Salmon area. Areas they focus on are included in the bill such as the Custer Gallatin National Forest, and water protection.
In the first 10/1/16-9/30/17' tax return posted below, with a net balance of 10,813,967 dollars, the GYC spent $118,957 in "direct lobbying" to influence a legislative body. $18,788 was spent on "grassroots" lobbying, which is an indirect way of influencing legislative bodies through their members. Another fact found in their tax return is the donation of $27,500 to the National Wildlife Federation, Idaho being an affiliate, for a "grazing allotment buyout", land that will most likely never be used again.
GYC proudly boasts about convincing the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to protect Grizzly habitat while partnering with them on other issues, shutting down sheep grazing, and again buying out grazing allotments. Is it no wonder that citizens have no voice on land use when NGOs such as GYC and others have the pocketbook and relationships to get what they want? Giving money to the USFS (pg 30) is just one way as they also partner with Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG), having even been on the "core team" for the development of the State Wildlife Action Plan (Rinaldi, page xii).
For an unknown reason, other than a request for an extension on tax filing, the GYC website lists a different tax form for the same year. In this form, lobbying expenses for the same period came to $116,300 in a payment made to a Washington D.C. lobbying firm, Forbes-Tate Partners. Given the drive for protecting land, did the GYC lobbyist have anything to do with the reintroduction of NREP or the recently signed S. 47?
In the tax forms, GYC specifically states one accomplishment as "permanently protecting Yellowstone's northern gateway from two proposed gold mines", that was in 2017. GYC took credit for the passage of the 2019 Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act that was included in S. 47. President Trump just signed this bill, effectively endorsing the GYC goal of shutting down all gold mining activity north of Yellowstone Park. Do they hold the same lobbying power to take thousands of acres of land for wilderness through NREP? Other accomplishments listed in the tax form, "conserving public lands...in the Gallatin Range...and...High Divide", and new protections on BLM lands. Water is another focus for "permanent" protection. All of these are addressed in the NREP bill.
As a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), which is a IUCN member and supports IUCN objectives for protecting large areas for conservation, GYC is in charge of implementing those IUCN objectives within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Salmon-Selway Ecosystem.
Representatives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson are both members of the Congressional Western Conference (CWC), although Rep. Simpson is known for his alignment with NGOs and support for land grab legislation. CWC has a multitude of issues that it covers, one of which is federal land management, claiming too much land is controlled by the federal government and the "checkerboard" of land ownership should be streamlined. Yet at the same time, this group applauded the passage of S.47, which establishes more national monuments, designates more wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, restores the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is used for land purchases by the federal government, and provides money to NGOs for continuation of their agenda. Taking more land is being justified by increased access to public land use "unless specifically designated otherwise". Should the CWC be trusted to oppose NREP, or have GYC lobbyists and others successfully infiltrated, or bought, the caucus? NGOs have become so financially powerful they are now buying logging industries.
From all accounts, it is clear that the federal government has only one intention in mind, take more land and restrict use, leaving citizens they represent out, instead building and funding NGO partnerships to accomplish their goals. NREP is just another example of how we are being robbed of our land. Let your representatives, CWC, and the House Committee on Natural Resources know that you oppose more land being taken from us and their support of NGO agendas.
It is well known that the federal government is heavily in bed with non governmental organizations (NGO), especially our resource agencies through the Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). What may not be understood is how big that bed is or why federal agencies continue to implement NGO objectives over the voice of citizens. The Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC) provides the explanation.
The NLC "mission" is advancing "...collaborative, cross border conservation as an essential approach to connect and protect nature, culture, and community". Note should be taken on that cross border statement. This means across states, counties, and countries, the primary country they are referring to is Canada. There is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. NLC is a "hub" of organizations and individuals who participate in the agenda to place as much land as possible into conservation. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Nature Conservancy, Land Trusts, Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM), conservation zealots, and others all serve on the coordinating committee. NLC membership includes "100-plus organizational partners and 2,000-plus involved practitioners."
While NLC claims to "bring people together", it is really about robbing citizen rights for representation through their elected officials, instead placing decisions with those who have no interest other than implementing their own ideology. By their own admission, they recognize this is a "shift in process" that "...crosses jurisdictional and topical boundaries, transcending traditional decision-making processes (meaning the foundation of our government as a Republic), and top-down hierarchies." It is government run amok with tyranny.
Recently, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were "discontinued". However, efforts are now underway by USFWS and state agencies to fund the same objective through "public and private partners" and continue their conservation work. NLC is also pursuing funding for their objectives through a newly created Catalyst Fund, with money coming from foundations. This money will be used to help "build capacity", that is, it will bring in more partners to overpower us with their objectives and build up NGO activity. All of their initiatives in Idaho can be found on this map with the names of the groups that are executing their agenda upon us. Get to know those names so you know who you are dealing with, and their objectives. Since the cooperatives were eliminated, or at least diminished in their capacity, the governments and NGOs are now coalescing into organizations such as the NLC, there are many others. This is creating possibly a new, more powerful mass that will increase their threat towards us.
As seen here, NLC partners include the USFS, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, NGOs, land trusts, foundations, policy centers, and universities. Nowhere to be found are citizens or local governments. It is these groups and individuals who are making decisions with the federal government on land use, if use is even allowed at all. In conjunction with these groups, federal agencies write policies, then, using the Delphi technique, parade around in front of us with a charade of phony collaborative meetings to placate us into believing we have input. Opposing science to theirs is ignored, violating the Data Quality Act, and impacts to local businesses are dissed which is in conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Included in these ignored laws is the mandate for Coordination, the requirement that a federal agency meet with local governments to ensure consistency in land use policies prior to any action being taken.
While the NLC claims local governments are aware of and support landscape conservation, when is the last time your elected official announced this support to constituents? Is it the intent for local governments, who hold the highest authority for governance closest to the people, to align "...with appropriate state, federal and non-governmental programs to support landscape conservation..."? Or is that support hidden through unelected associations such as the National Association of Counties? NLC admits to incorporating their objectives "...into existing state policies and programs—in traditional conservation programs like State Wildlife Action Plans...". There is no escaping the fact that the intent is to align government policies that support landscape conservation in all levels of government. To learn more about those objectives NLC has archived webinars which provide insight into how these individuals and groups think and their ideology.
The truth is, federal agencies are in partnership with the NLC and its members to develop policy, however the members of the "Policy Working Group" are not identified. A policy paper was written for President Trump shortly after he was elected, deciding for you that you believe in their brand of conservation, asking for continued use of your tax dollar to support them, and supporting the creation of partnerships with the private sector. Perhaps the groups listed in that paper identify those who are part of the working group. This is why citizens cannot get their voice heard, the NLC and all of their cronies have already made the decision with the federal government. In fact, the 1964 Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser from the Wilderness Society. That is how long the NGOs have had control. Completely left out of the equation is local government and citizen involvement. The federal government works for these groups, not us.
For all of those who are experiencing these atrocities on local issues, your voice being ignored in decisions about public land, take this information to your next meeting with a federal agency, start asking questions about their partnerships with NGOs, and provide those NGO names. Make them aware that you know these partnerships exist and ask that documentation of their work with each other is made available to you. Demand answers, you have a right to know who is running the show with these agencies. Publicize your knowledge about this information, identify the groups and players and name them, identify their objectives and how it aligns with federal agency actions. Expose them, confront them, let others know so they can join you. Now is the time to disrupt their agenda and expose the truth.
Technocrats, those who are driven to have scientific control over society, are working hard to ultimately design how we recreate, known as Community Based Tourism (CBT). In there quest for ultimate control, they are determined to design the area where we recreate, dictate how we mange our businesses and behave as tourists, and decide how we are allowed to enjoy ourselves.
In usual technocratic fashion, definitions of tourism are broken down into microscopic details of data. One shouldn't be allowed to just go someplace and enjoy themselves. Ecotourism is "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education" of tourists. This is seen as different from other screwball tourism categories they have created such as responsible, sustainable, or even green tourism. All of these over analyzed definitions of people going somewhere to freely enjoy themselves will just be listed here as Sustainable Tourism (ST). ST has some set criteria that includes consideration for environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts, and sustainable management of the tourist destination, all of which are essentially the same as other definitions. These criteria determine how you are allowed to use land, where, and the way in which you should behave.
Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) is part of this agenda and have been very secretive about this longer term plan for CBT, usually referring to it vaguely as a form of economic development or diversity. While working hard to place as much land as possible into protection between existing protected areas (PA) for their connectivity agenda, the end goal includes dictating how that land should be designed and used as a tourist. While this Y2Y link to a conference does not work, it does state the conference includes presentations on "ecosystem economics and tourism", and is appropriately named "Tracking the Human Footprint". This is CBT and there are now degrees that can be earned in this field.
As usual with technocrats, everything has to be broken down into precise categories for scientific measure. For PA tourism, CBT includes the ST concept but in true technocratic fashion, the criteria are even more precisely defined. Increasing the amount of PAs is essential for CBT implementation, and is a driving factor behind the urgency by Y2Y and their partner non-governmental organizations (NGO) to get as much land as possible into protection. Because the list of technocratic CBT requirements is so exhaustive, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provides the best guide for now. This particular document is also important because Y2Y is an IUCN member, just type their full name in the search box, and Y2Y founder, Harvey Locke, is also a member, working hard to implement IUCN objectives. The IUCN is an active partner of the United Nations (UN). It is a falsehood for any Y2Y member to say there is no connection to the UN as Jody Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, stated while insulting Idaho rural residents at the 31:20 mark in this video. While claiming the population has doubled, Ms. Hilty doesn't believe anyone has the right to freedoms as she condescendingly mocks those who do at the 26:10 mark, and that OHV use should be removed at the 9:00 mark. Doubled in what time frame Ms. Hilty, and is it not rather pompous to presume that this alleged double population will descend on what you believe is land that should never be used? Folks, this is the technocratic arrogance we are dealing with. Ms. Hilty herself references the IUCN PA agenda in the video.
In a 2014 study, Ms. Hilty even scrutinized local land use ordinances for "conservation design" in protected areas, advocating for development that "requires a portion of a residential property to be set aside for conservation" with "smaller lots...clustered together, allowing for open space and biological resources to be permanently protected", having full intentions of targeting local governments for inclusion of these objectives into land use policies. There are Y2Y and other NGO members who carry out these tasks, targeting local governments.
In the IUCN Tourism and visitor management in protected areas Guidelines for sustainability document, all aspects of controlling tourism in PAs is covered. IUCN and others believe tourism has a negative impact on the environment and especially on PAs such as parks and wilderness areas. As more areas are placed into protective status, there will be more regulated use, at least that is the plan. Regulated use considers conservation of the area, economical and social factors, and cultural aspects with guidelines broken down into miniscule details. While this document may seem overwhelming and of not much interest, it should be at least scanned through to understand, and prepare for, the future of what Y2Y and others want to do. Being aware of this regulatory control agenda will assist Idahoans in recognizing it when attempts are made to integrate the objectives into local land use policies.
There are some basic elements to Protected Area Tourism. Some of those elements include programs that educate the the tourist on conservation practices and the importance of PA conservation. Guided tours, campfire talks, and friendly reminders located around the area are just a few traps for education. The intent is influencing both tourist businesses and visitor behavior. These ideologues believe CBT is an economic benefit with increased number of jobs while charging fees for visiting a PA. Also within this fatuous idea is the belief that living standards will increase, cultures will be appreciated more, and mental health will improve, but not without the dichotomy of concerns over "psychological" stress to wildlife and environmental damage from tourism.
As a result, there must be management objectives because of these impacts. Tourism must align with conservation objectives which leads to strict control over land use and the way in which one behaves and visits the area. There should also be a "commercialisation (sic) manual", dictating how businesses are managed, some of which includes adopting "an ecosystem-based approach in tourism development" and designing and adopting "nature-based solutions". For businesses that currently exist, the plan includes educating them on the proper way to conduct their business.
With their "Visitor Management Framework", recommendations include putting "hard limits (up to and including bans) on problematic visitor uses" through zoning, rationing, and enforcement. Other management methods involve increasing surveillance, limiting activity to bike only zones or hiker only days, prohibiting motor use, limiting campsite designation, length of stays, access points, and size of groups; restrictions on campfires, fishing, and hunting; requiring visitors to hire guides; and imposing fines. In the never ending endeavor for control, requiring tourist proof of ecological knowledge and recreational activity skills is even listed. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) prepared a report for IUCN which has a special tools section for visitor management which IUCN advocates. The U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies have already adopted these visitor management tools, true technocratic dictatorship.
Certification as a tourist and especially as a business is seen as needed for "conformity to a set of standards, including specific sustainability targets", which they see as a possible "marketing tool" to attract tourists, a way in which to influence behavior, duping people to believe that all of this control over what we do and how we behave is good.
An ominous subject is "buffer zones". These are communities just outside of protected areas, often referred to as failures, in spite of the fact that communities which lie near PAs have been successfully managed by locals and families for generations. Another term for these buffer zones is gateway communities. Because of the erroneous belief that these communities don't know what they are doing, a summit was held in 2018 to discuss strategies on how to change the way in which these communities currently function with local control. This insulting 1999 article also expresses the idea that gateway communities don't know what they are doing and should look like Jackson. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration also has their hands in redesigning gateway communities for economic benefits and "livability", defining a gateway community as a "community directly adjacent to or near public lands managed by a federal agency which actively provides services to the public land visitors." A case is also made for expanding parks to manage the deluge of tourists, just sucking those gateway communities right into the fold of dictatorship. For every Idaho tourist community near public or protected land, you are a target for this agenda, starting with communities near Yellowstone.
The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) also has their fingers in the bowl for PA tourism, publishing this Ecotourism: Principles, Practices & Policies for Sustainability document in 2002. Y2Y is identified as an active "regional" participant in this 2012 document, Sustainable Mountain Development Green Economy and Institutions, which describes the true intention behind Y2Y activities, a "framework" for mountain development. With Agenda 21 as a key reference for future action for Governance, the focus is conservation and development, "green investment", policy partnerships with the private sector (P3), and green energy use. What this gibberish really means is the technocrats believe we are unable to control our growth with proper planning, harm the land and environment, and indeed we ourselves need to be micromanaged. This is one massive agenda for control, or more appropriately worded, dictatorship, and our government is right in line to implement it in their partnerships with the UN and NGOs such as Y2Y. The UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is spreading this same agenda around the world, promoting "observation" of nature, specialized tour operators, managing areas for conservation, and promotion of education on conservation.
Both Agenda 21 (pg 33) and 2030 have specific sections on tourism. This objective has been planned for many years and as more land is placed into forms of protection, they are to the point where more dictatorial methods will incrementally be placed on us. The UN recently updated their sustainable mountain development objectives.
To guard your local land use policies from this assault, contact your local elected officials about creating a citizen advisory committee (CAC), there are multiple types of CACs, one of which could be specific to land use policies. The mission can be simple, to have citizen involvement over decisions made for land policies and prevent the inclusion of the ST agenda. It also ensures citizens would have prominent input into those policies as the CAC could hold public meetings, rather than NGOs controlling the discussion. This would also be a tremendous service to your commissioners and council members as understanding state land use laws can be complex. Recommendations can be made to the officials, this being especially critical for "gateway" communities. If you want to get involved in protecting your community from the larger Y2Y and UN agenda, give this some serious thought. Create a Resource Management Plan similar to this Custer County prooposal that ensures adherence to federal laws and maintains local control. Now is the time for you to leave behind the "I don't know what to do" slogan. Be the sheepdog before a sustainable tourism corporate developer comes knocking at your door to design the whole area as a master plan, or through the federal government.
Otherwise, you will be outweighed by this agenda, and the graphic below indicates your position in the decisions.
The federal government has increasingly been engaging in public-private partnerships (P3) as a way in which to fund projects. A huge portion of these partnerships involves conservation and land use, but not to the advantage of Idahoans. Rep. Simpson was previously involved in the Boulder-White Clouds designation as a wilderness and actively engaged with the Idaho Conservation League to get that accomplished. Aside from his alliance with non-governmental organizations (NGO), who they themselves are heavily financed by foundations, he is now taking a direct turn to corporate troughs for their endless pit of money, money that is often used to suck up land for non-use, known as syndicated conservation easements.
Sen. Risch and Idaho Fish & Game have also turned to corporate money to fund conservation. It seems Rep. Simpson has adopted that approach. Along with Rep. Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Simpson introduced the Land and National Park Deferred Maintenance (LAND) Act. Federal "investment" using corporate profits? Using energy revenues, this bill would "...permanently reauthorize LWCF and create new dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog at National Parks and other public lands.". The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was allowed to expire September 30, 2018, and for good reason. As Rep. Bishop points out, the original LWCF intent was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities" splitting money between state funding and federal land acquisition, with 60 percent going to states. Because of intense lobbying by environmental groups, the majority of that money now goes to the federal government for land acquisition, having added another 5 million acres of land under federal control.
Corporatism over our lands advanced after Bass Pro founder John L. Morris, with other corporate and NGO friends, created the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2014 to fund State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), which targets species and habitats for conservation, for 1.3 billion. The same 1.3 billion dollars keeps popping up in other legislation. Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act, introduced in 2018, also addresses the same maintenance backlog of parks, with the same 1.3 billion, in addition to Rep. Simpson's and Sen. Risch's bills. President Trump even previously budgeted Department of Interior money from sales of energy resources on public land for park maintenance backlog in 2018, and again this year. A full accounting of the Department of Interior 2019 budget can be found here. If corporate money is used for these activities, who has control over the land and how it is used? Will our national parks become corporate dens? Environmental groups are thrilled to potentially have their trough restored, regardless of which bill succeeds or where the money comes from.
It should be no surprise that P3 "investments" are increasing. Throughout Agenda 21 are references to creating P3's for Sustainable Development (SD) implementation. NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon are heavily funded by foundations and governments, admit to corporate funding, and are even allowed to accept foreign funding for SD. If energy revenues are used for maintenance backlog, what will be the payoff for the corporation in advertising and product distribution? Concern about corporate involvement from corporate donations has already been raised, just how much corporate control will there be through the influence of a P3? What concerns will there be with large sums of money that rebuild infrastructure? Who will get the sweetest deal? How much advertising will be allowed with slogans like, "This eco-restroom was proudly restored by Shell"? We have already seen our sports stadiums being renamed in the honor of some corporation, will this become the direction for our parks? National Parks have a permitting process for commercial activities with requirements on allowed activities. What constraints will be created for corporate financing though a P3?
Below is a short video on Agenda 21 P3. Or a slightly longer version is here.
Agenda 2030 is no exception for P3, if anything it is an advancement. Keeping in mind that the United Nations (UN) has partnerships with major corporations to implement SD, a.k.a. Agenda 21/2030, it is the natural course for them to use these partnerships as an avenue to integrate their agenda into governments with P3. Because of the SD goals for changing our infrastructure, corporate funding becomes necessary, at least according to the UN, even holding conferences on it. This is a natural way in which to fund and advance their agenda, the caveat for money acquisition is corporate SD requirements, and so very sadly, our elected officials fall for it. Or do they know about it and agree? With P3s, the UN is directing us into corporatism, where our country will be run by corporations through our government, and they have a plan just for that, Vision 2050, it is all laid out on what the world will look like with corporate governance.
Why, Why, Why do we continually fail to remove traitors of our Constitution from elected office? Why are we not able to come together enough for a force that will end this continued destruction of our sovereignty? We cannot continue to haplessly stand by and allow this to happen. President Trump says America will never be a socialist country, yet everything now continues to lead us that way, and in some cases we are already there. P3s are just another way in which it is being done.
Contact Rep. Simpson and let him know you vehemently oppose his bill that destroys our sovereignty, that we do not want corporations funding our public lands, that the LWCF should not be renewed due to its use as a government trough for accruing more land, and if he chooses to not listen to his constituents every effort will be made to remove him from office at the next election, or sooner by recall. Pass this on to everyone you know, have them pass it on. It doesn't just affect Idahoans, it will affect every citizen in America.
Once again a bill has been introduced in Congress to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations (UN). Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers introduced H.R. 204, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2019, to the House on 1/3/19, which has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Fellow Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky has been a regular co-sponsor. Rep. Rogers has attempted this before without success. However, his home state of Alabama was the first to create a law banning participation in Agenda 21. Another supporter is Sen. Rand Paul whose father, Rep. Ron Paul, introduced previous versions in 1997 and 2009.
President Trump has already provided direction on withdrawal from the UN. One UN organization he withdrew the U.S. from is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which has been the driving force behind the change in our educational system. Other activities he pulled the U.S. out of include the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), UN Migration Compact, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Not only is there grave concern about UN anti-Semitism, there is also the outrageous amount of money the U.S. gives to the UN, more than any other country. H.R. 204 would end that cost. This Act would also repeal various federal statutes that authorize U.S. involvement in the UN, prohibit the use of U.S. troops by the UN, close the U.S. Mission to the UN, remove the UN headquarters from U.S. soil, and formally repeal U.S. participation in UNESCO, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and World Health Organization (WHO), while ending involvement in conventions and agreements and all participation in any UN organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.
Contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to co-sponsor this bill and vote in favor of its passage.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!