In 2007 the Western Governor's Association (WGA) created the policy Resolution 07-01, Protecting Wildlife Migration
Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West" which has since been scrubbed from their website. The purpose was "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west." Subsequently in 2008, the Wildlife Corridors Initative established the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (WWHC), accountable to WGA governors.
Using GIS tools, the WWHC created the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT). The WGA launched this tool in 2013, managed it through 2014, then transferred it to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) in 2015, where it was renamed the WAFWA CHAT. Implemented in several states, as of this time, Idaho does not have a CHAT site. Here is the result of their work, the Chat map. This tool was also used to integrate wildlife data into transportation projects for mitigation of wildlife vehicle collisions and conservation.
Since 1922, WAFWA has represented "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", currently in 23 states and Canadian provinces...". Aside from the treasurer, all Officers are from other states besides Idaho and members include other states and countries.
While WAFWA claims to be an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and "not a related organization", IDFG is listed as a AFWA member, there are at least 13 IDFG employees on various AFWA committees, and Virgil Moore, IDFG Director, was named AFWA President this year. Isn't there some sort of conflict of interest here? Shouldn't Moore be focused on Idaho and serving Idahoans rather than other interests? AFWA, originally created in 1902, is based in Washington D.C. and "represents state agencies" on capital hill, among other activities. AFWA members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI). How is this representing IDFG?
How boring, why does any of this matter? It matters because now there are corporations and UN NGOs involved and they are driving the agenda, not Idahoans.
In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources (BRP) was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal. BRP "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups and state fish and wildlife agencies." Their goals include, "recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.", and "recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations."
"The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and "was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis." Panel members include UN partners (Toyota, Shell), UN NGOs (NWF, AS, NSSF), and other groups funded by UN partners.
In 2015, the BRP released their final report, deciding America's Fish & Wildlife future, and "recommending a new funding approach". Meeting just three times, they came up with two recommendations.
First, they target the difficulty of State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) to fully fund their objectives, which is identifying species of greatest conservation of need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them. Therefore, they recommend, "Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion annually in existing revenue from the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters to the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program. These funds would provide states with the resources needed to implement State Wildlife Action Plans which are designed to conserve 12,000
species in greatest conservation need." They propose oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor and advertise that opinion to the public as, "This story of state-based fish and wildlife conservation is not understood by most Americans.", while at the same time stating, "Investing a portion of these proceeds into fish and wildlife conservation is supported by the public...". Which is it BRP? Do we Idahoans get your propaganda or not? Actually Idahoans understand both, we understand their agenda and the BRP stating we support their agenda is false. How can an hidden agenda that has never been brought to Idahoans be supported?
Recommendation 2 "...will convene a working group to examine how shifting demographics and changing attitudes about nature are affecting the relevancy of fish and wildlife conservation.", while also recommending "...state fish and wildlife agencies will need to transform their structures, operations and cultures to meet the changing expectations of their customers." Excuse me BRP, Idahoans are not your customers who can be manipulated into buying your line of false advertising and Idahoans are Constitutionally in charge of their own state agencies. The BRP solution to offset a loss in revenue from decreased hunting and fishing licenses and other fees is corporate involvement.
Perceiving that Americans are not connected correctly to their land, the BRP also believes "New funding would also provide resources to states to help reconnect people with nature and improve access to the outdoors to improve health and cultivate the next generation of conservationists." Ok, you are going to spend money to indoctrinate us on your beliefs, like a predator grooms its victim. Maybe we wouldn't be losing our connection to our land if you and others would stop devising ways to ban our ability to use it. Just how will people be reconnected to land when your goal is placing more land into conservation? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
The BRP focus areas are not just limited to conservation. They also include agriculture, international relations, climate change, and bioenergy, to name a few. Both WAFWA and AWFA support the BRP recommendations. To make everything more complicated, the BRP has changed its name to the "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife" (AAFW). The AAFW does not yet identify its partnerships and members. Needless to say, it is most likely nefarious.
Simply stated, the BRP is a conglomerate of lobbyists to advance corporate interests and conservation NGO objectives, and have succeeded in getting legislation introduced for the 1.3 billion dollars, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016.
However, all of this leads to the true damaging aspect. Corporate involvement has garnered another piece of legislation, H.R. 3400, called the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. Among other things this bill would create a system of National Recreation Areas (RMA) managed specifically for recreation. A National Recreation Area is the counterpart to a designated wilderness area or national monument, an identified protected area for recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association and NGOs love this as it benefits corporate greed, and NGO agendas to lock up and control land. Idaho representation is removed as the AAFW, with its corporate partners and NGOs, will continue to influence the direction of our federal land use. The WGA is also entertaining the idea to "fund landscape-scale conservation through private investments in habitat stewardship and ecosystem services." The Wilderness Society spells out just exactly what a recreation management area is, with all the restrictions, using the BLM as an example. Recreation Resource Management is already providing these types of services. Rep. Simpson already stung us with a RMA in the Sawtooth area, thanks Mike.
The UN places great faith in these public-private-partnerships (PPP) for recreation and tourism as outlined on page 14 in this UN World Tourism Organization booklet, even going so far to claim that "eventually the government must rely on the private sector to deliver services to tourists." Really? How did Americans ever get by without crony capitalism or a despot organization dictating our experiences in the wild? Now, the DOI Secretary is promoting the PPP right in line with the UN objectives.
As the advances in corporate takeover of our public land continues, another scheme is the "green investment scenario would allow the sector to continue to expand steadily over the coming decades while ensuring significant environmental benefits such as reductions in water consumption, energy use and CO2 emissions." UN business partners will start forcing UN ideology on us as we try to use our public lands. In true technocratic fashion, the UN has broken tourism down into four categories, ecotourism, nature, sustainable, and responsible tourism. The UN has been at this awhile, expanding on tourism in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of Sustainable Development.
Chapter 7.20(e) of Agenda 21 promotes sound and culturally sensitive tourism programmes, even writing about it in 1997. In Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 8.9 and 12.B, are targeted to "devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products". Given UN business partnerships are driving us towards corporatism, this is the direction our government is taking us, placing the governance of public land into private business hands which will promote "sustainable" recreation while creating jobs and products, all in support of the UN SDGs. We are being robbed of our God given right to use our land.
Land conservation is also falling into corporate hands. The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), established by Congress in 1984 and based in Washington D.C., is a conglomerate of federal agencies, corporations of which many are UN partners, and foundations. It is a "conservation grant-maker"..."to protect and restore our nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats." They have multiple conservation programs throughout the U.S., including the Cabinet-Yaak area in northern Idaho.
The NFWF describes the corporate run future of Idaho land in their business plan, which provides "prospective investors" information and "internal guidance" to achieve conservation goals. Money from investors, which matches public dollars with private contributions, is intended to help fund conservation initiatives for "corridors and connectivity". Focal areas include the Cabinet Yakk, US 20 in Island Park, and along the border in the High Divide area for protection and conservation, while bridging "multiple jurisdictions". Themes of that funding include road ecology (wildlife overpasses), habitat protection, and capacity building (getting others to join in their agenda). It isn't enough that the government possesses the majority of Idaho, they want to take more for protection and control. $12.0 million has already been approved for the High Divide project.
Not to be outdone, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has joined the corporatism band wagon. In 2014, sponsored by UN business partner JPMorgan Chase & Co, they created a program called NatureVest, which is intended to accelerate their conservation goals. How can the lowly taxpayer compete against all of this corporate money advancing UN goals?
Starting with the WGA, then winding through a barrage of non-Idaho agencies, corporations, countries, and individuals, we are being led to corporations with money that completely bypasses our Constitutional right to local and state representation. IDFG employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through state law. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been turned over to other states and countries, corporations, and NGOs who are here to serve the UN agenda. Sad to say, but Americans have already lost one foundation of our Constitution, representation by elected officials, going instead to corporate control and interests, and the UN.
There has been, and what is now a very aggressive agenda, to take and control Idaho land. Idahoans may not realize the magnitude of individuals and organizations involved so this is an overview of some, but not all, to provide an understanding of the problem, and its depth. These organizations and individuals work in harmony with each other and some individuals traverse between groups providing direction on conservation issues. Currently, land in between protected areas is highly targeted for conservation. This can only be described as a coup d'état.
Western Governor's Association (WGA)
The WGA created Resolution 07-01 in 2007, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West, "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west.". The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) was created using GIS tools, then transferred to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Here is the result of their work, the Chat map.
Goal: Data Collection, creation of corridors, and conservation.
Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
WAFWA represents "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", including Canada. WAFWA is an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), however, IDFG is listed as a AFWA member with 13 employees on various committees. IDFG Director, Virgil Moore, was named AFWA President this year. AFWA, based in Washington D.C., "represents state agencies" on capital hill while its members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI).
Goal: Conservation of species, enacting federal legislation to enforce conservation.
Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP)
The BRP, created in 2014 by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups, and state fish and wildlife agencies." The BRP includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and is a conglomerate of lobbyists succeeding in in introducing legislation, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016 which requests 1.3 billion dollars for conservation. One goal is creating policy options to fund "conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species" via state SWAP plans and restructuring state fish and wildlife agencies. (BRP was renamed "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife"-AAFW).
Goal: Raise funds through corporations to support conservation efforts in states and through federal legislation, possibly influence how fish & wildlife agencies are structured, rather than keeping it as a state decision.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC)
Created by the Department of Interior and administered by USFWS, these are partnerships between NGOs, federal and state government agencies, universities, and conservation initiatives to collect data on species, habitat, and land which will then be evaluated for conservation through creation of corridors for connectivity, and other measures.
Goal: Identifying species and habitat for corridors which can be used to place large tracts of land into conservation for connectivity to other protected areas, convincing private land owners to place their land into conservation easements, buying land through NGOs and the federal government, erasing jurisdictional boundaries between counties, states, and countries, and creating a regional environmental governance.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP)
The LILP, UN NGO, integrates theory and practice for public policy decisions on land use. They were responsible for the idea to bring all conservationists together in one group, "a collective voice for advancing the theory and practice of large landscape conservation", called the Network for Large Landscape Conservation, then rebranded as the Network for Landscape Conservation. They also brought in LCCs, USFS, USGS, BLM and other federal agencies to enhance funding through grants. The LILP believes in regionalism, that jurisdictional boundaries, and your representation through elected officials, are irrelevant. LILP focuses on building a large landscape community of conservation practice. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is another organization that tries to influence the use of private property and whom "policy makers" listen to, rather than you.
Goal: Increase efforts to put all land into conservation for protection and connectivity, research land policy programs for public officials and others about the use of land, land regulation, and property rights, having a "more active role in the conversations that shape public policy decisions.", which also involves land trusts.
Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC)
The NLC includes individuals working across geographies, regardless of political boundaries, to conserve connected, ecological systems by partnering with multiple organizations and the federal government.
Goal: Conserving land for connectivity.
Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP)
CNREP is "known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land-use planning, and cross-boundary resource management.", including large landscape conservation strategic frameworks for policy and action.
Goal: Influence public policy on land issues.
Conservation Science Partners (CSP)
Research scientists in applied conservation science, collecting and developing new data for conservation practitioners, all to support conservation goals. Their partners include the federal government and several other sources cited in this article.
Goal: Producing science that supports all forms of conservation and organization objectives.
Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
CBI conducts conservation research and develops conservation tools, such as Data Basin, for collecting data that assists conservation agendas, and regional planning assessments to support conservation projects globally. Data collection includes protected areas, conservation easements, and high conservation value areas. Partners include foundations, the federal government, corporations, and universities. The DOI funded CBI to "assist in the strategic development and expansion of scientific information, analysis and support tools to benefit the LCC network and facilitate landscape conservation design." This tool is interoperable between LCCs. Core Data Basin information is free and also serves the HORI which is a land trust partnership for placement of private land into conservation.
Goal: Create tools for conservation, provide a data center where all conservation data can be stored and accessible to conservation groups and individuals for promotion of conservation.
HD, HOR, Y2Y, GYC, COC, FW, TNC, WS, HFLP, WCS, DOW, NWF
All of these "initiatives" and NGOs, many being UN NGOs, have common goals, putting as much private land as possible into conservation easements, buying private land to retain or sell to the government as a conservation easement, declaring areas needing protection for species or habitats, identifying corridors between protected land for eventual linkage and connectivity, engaging as many private land owners as possible to use conservation practices on their land, indoctrinating the young on believing their conservation is the only answer, creating conservation by design on land, expanding boundaries of already existing protected land such as national parks, and engaging county commissioners to integrate restrictive land use regulations into comprehensive plans. TNC is even bringing in corporations to fund their goals, starting with UN business partner J.P. Morgan. There are multiple overlaps of individuals between these groups with some players being prominent leaders such as Gary Tabor, Rob Ament, Michael Whitfield, Joel Berger, and Matthew McKinney.
Goal: Put all land into some form of conservation status with restrictive regulations on how land is used, expand protected land boundaries so wildlife has room to roam, procure as much land as possible.
USFWS, USFS, BLM, NPS, NRCS, USDA
The federal government partners with initiatives, organizations, and NGOs to accomplish conservation goals and regionalism. Each agency has a variety of programs for conservation. It is your tax dollar being used to fund these conservation groups. Eventually, all recreation and how you recreate will be "managed" for conservation and protection, as H.R. 3400, Sec. 305 describes.
Goal: Use taxpayer dollars to assist groups to achieve their goals of conservation across county, state, and country jurisdictional boundaries while failing to represent Americans as public servants through elected officials, or engage them with transparency.
Western Transportation Institute (WTI)
WTI conducts research on roads to assist with identifying core habitats, dispersal corridors, restoring connectivity, and highway mitigation methods, under the guise of road ecology.
Goal: Determine how your roads should be built and managed simultaneously with conservation groups.
Aside from these groups taking your tax dollar to support their objectives, there are also wealthy foundations that contribute to the effort. Wilburforce, Brainerd, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Turner (UN partner) are just a few foundations that fork over money for conservation groups.
Goal: Financially assist NGOs and initiatives in conservation objectives.
What is interesting about these groups is there are legal requirements not being followed. This Legal Framework For Cooperative Conservation document outlines some legal requirements. There are specific requirements for public involvement but these groups create their own support groups with the same ideology, then proclaim them as public involvement. Public engagement, those individuals who live in a particular area, are never involved while engagement with state and federal agencies are hidden as well. Specific requirements for open and transparent disclosure are also required, but this rarely happens. As stated in the document, "These resources belong to the public", not the conservation groups. But that is what they believe, they own the land, it is theirs to manipulate, and hide what they are doing.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended "to ensure that agency officials make policy decisions in open, deliberative processes rather than behind closed doors with undue influence by select stakeholders". However, this is exactly what has been happening, activity and decisions are being made with select groups and hidden from the public. In order to delegate authority to new entities, "Congress must specify the general policies under which the group operates and the restrictions limiting the group’s authority." LCCs, initiatives, and NGOs operate without any congressional policy, create their own policies while projecting an image of authority, are self directed with no oversight, while the public is not informed about the depth of involvement by so many groups, their intention to collect and share data for decisions on how we will live or use our land, or that the federal government is funding it with our tax dollar. Had we been informed would we agree to this egregious agenda? Would there be agreement to the end goal of placing the majority of Idaho into conservation with restricted use?
Our Constitution is based on separation of powers. Therefore, federal "agencies may not “subdelegate” this authority to outside parties." But the federal and state agencies are subdelegating decisions to these conservation groups, allowing them to integrate their objectives into governmental decisions, and influencing our elected officials. Even worse, now there is a growing movement towards private sector management of our public land, which Secretary Zinke supports and is implementing with a recreation advisory committee. Is this a sub-delegation of our public land to outside interests? Will there be corporate influence over how the land is used which overrides the public whose tax dollars pay for public land use?
There is also the audacity of the USFS being allowed to subjugate private land to public use for access to public land. The Fifth amendment clearly states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Matthew McKinney (CNREP), believes in regionalism, and has his own ideas about land, co-authoring an article, "The Emerging Role of Network Governance in Large Landscape Conservation". He and his coauthor claim, "No single entity has the authority to address these types of cross-boundary issues, resulting in gaps in governance and a corresponding need to create formal and informal ways work more effectively across administrative boundaries, land ownerships, and political jurisdictions." Network governance is intended to "supplement", not replace other forms of governance. Supplement is a broad term but most likely it is meant to be an insertion of his and other groups ideology for conservation and regionalism. By his own admission, "civic entrepreneurs from the public and private sectors, NGOs, and universities have catalyzed a variety of innovative governance arrangements". Has he ever heard of the Constitution, the foundation of which cannot be exchanged for other "governance arrangements? Mr. McKinney has written about "Global Guidance on Transboundary Conservation" for the IUCN and how to initiate it.
As a Global Transboundary Conservation Network member, and World Commission on Protected Areas ( WCPA) member, Mr. McKinney has deep ties with the UN, especially regarding protected areas, bringing UN ideology into decisions regarding Idaho through his many connections. All of his activities are moving towards the UN Environmental Governance strategy, which the University of Montana might teach in their model UN program where Mr. McKinney works.
This CSP graphic gives a visual picture of just a few who are involved in controlling our land use.
The majority of these groups and individuals are scientists, technocrats, implementing their agenda via technocracy, a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology, or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts. Most associate with the UN and are actively implementing Agenda 2030 SD target Goals 15 and 17.17.
Federal and state employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through laws. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been entrusted to other states, countries, corporations, organizations, and NGOs. Unless we come together, organize direct opposition to them, land use for "future generations" will be living with these individuals and groups deciding how land is used. We cannot let them continue taking control of Idaho land.
Let the Indoctrination Expand
As a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO), the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) has abandoned their loyalty to the United States. UN NGOs are required to to commit their loyalty to implementing the goals and objectives of the UN.
With so much false information at hand now, finding some legitimate source on the origins of the Girl Scouts is concerning. It is best to go to the first printings and discover the original intentions of the Girl Scouts.
Juliette Lowe originally founded the Girl Guides in 1912, modeled after a boys program in England, and the name changed to Girl Scouts in 1915. The 1922 handbook states the Promise as: "On my honor I will try: To do my duty to God and my country; To help other people at all times; and To obey the scout laws. The Promise now states: On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country; To help people at all times; And to live by the Girl Scout Law. No more duty to God or country.
The scout law originally included that a Girl Scout(s): Honor is to be Trusted; is Loyal; is to be Useful and to Help Others; is a Friend to All and a Sister to every other Girl Scout; is Courteous; is a Friend to Animals; Obeys Orders; is Cheerful; is Thrifty; and is Clean in Thought, Word and Deed.
The more recent changes to the law first came in 1972, then again in 1996. The law has now morphed into I will do my best to be: honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do; and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.
It may seem like mincing words here but what was a traditional American foundation has now been hijacked for the world. While no "mission" could be found in the 1922 or 1925 handbook, the mission is now building "girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place." No more duty to country, America.
The Principles in 1922 were the Motto: Be Prepared; Slogan: Do a Good Turn Daily; Pledge: Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag; and the Promise. The GSUSA currently retains the Motto and Slogan as "traditions" rather than a Principle, but not the Pledge.
No more allegiance to the Flag or duty to God and country. In fact, Section VIII in the 1922 edition is devoted entirely to the US Flag, much of which seems to be omitted, at least on the GSUSA website.
While the GSUSA has similar requirements for the Flag it now also includes inviting girls from other countries "to honor their flags too, and together conduct an international flag ceremony." They also describe the flag ceremony as "honoring the American flag" as the "symbol of our country and all the hopes, dreams, and people it represents." Wrong.
While no specific information could be found on what the Flag represents this site has an interesting description of what the Pledge means as Red Skelton recites what he was taught in grade school. However, the Flag colors do have specific representations: white signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; and blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The stars represent the states, and the thirteen stripes represent the original thirteen colonies. The Flag is not a symbol, it does not represent dreams or people, it represents the United States.
The official Handbook in 1925 placed a heavy emphasis on learning life skills such as cooking, sewing, understanding weather and nature, camping, first aid, gardening, even Morse code.
Few life skills are now taught. Badges are earned for business etiquette, buying power, public policy, customer loyalty, programming robots, entertainment technology, with a sprinkling of first aid, simple meals, and archery. Numerous job badges can be earned rather than for personal life skills. Just like ambassadors to the UN, there are "Ambassador" badges for grades 11 and 12. Young girls are being groomed to learn skills that will serve corporations.
The GSUSA is now run as a business model which includes corporate partners, many of which are UN business partners, and a National Board made up of individuals from many UN business partners as well. GSUSA has been transformed into a conglomerate of pseudo-corporate heads, a business enterprise. It is no surprise given the UN is leading us to corporatism.
Why is this being done? Very simple, as a UN NGO since 2003, the GSUSA is obligated to support UN goals and objectives, and this includes the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). All Girl Scout activities will now be for the sole purpose of indoctrinating young girls in UN ideology. And we wonder why there has been such an acceleration of socialist, collectivist, and global citizenry thinking in our youth. It should be no surprise.
No use turning to the Boy Scouts. They have also adopted the UN through the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), a UN NGO. The Boy Scouts Citizenship in the World merit badge educates scouts on the UN. Not to worry, the UN will be reaching out to the Boy Scouts to implement their SDG goals as well.
Just remember the direction and philosophy of scouts is no longer American, it is UN.
Secretary Zinke Order
It is time for your voice to be heard.
On March 28, 2017 President Trump signed an Executive Order rescinding several Obama memorandums and executive orders. Among others, this specifically included;
(i) Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change); (ii) The Presidential Memorandum of June 25, 2013 (Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards);
(iii) The Presidential Memorandum of November 3, 2015 (Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment); and
(iv) The Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016 (Climate Change and National Security).
The President then instructed agency heads to identify existing agency actions that occurred as a result of the now rescinded executive orders and memorandums.
Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Zinke issued Order 3349 on March 29, 2017. This order effectively revoked “…Secretary’s Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior” dated October 31, 2013.” All landscape conservation cooperatives were effectively ordered to cease their activities, not only the involved federal agencies but the NGOs as well. The order also gave timelines, 90 days being the longest, to determine whether actions should be reviewed, reconsidered, or revised. Other provisions were included in the order, go to the link and read the full order.
But the news gets even better.
The Secretary has asked for public comments on all DOI regulations. That means if you have issues with any DOI regulation you can now submit your comments on those that need to be eliminated. This is a huge opportunity for the public to provide feedback on regulations that are destroying the way we live. The large landscape cooperatives are administered by US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Go to: www.regulations.gov
A. Enter the Docket number In the Search box.
B. On the Docket comment page, type in your comments, or copy/paste your comments into the Comment box.
C. Follow instructions for submitting your comments.
D. You may submit as many comments as desired; there is no current deadline for comments.
Bureau of Land Management ................................ DOI–2017–0003–0003
Bureau of Reclamation ........................................ DOI–2017–0003–0005
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement .... DOI–2017–0003–0006
National Park Service ......................................... DOI–2017–0003–0007
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation &Enforcement ..DOI–2017–0003–0008
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................DOI–2017–0003–0009
U.S. Geological Survey.........................................DOI–2017–0003–00010
Bureau of Indian Affairs....................................... DOI–2017–0003–0002
Other Interior agencies and offices .......................DOI–2017–0003–00011
Take the time, submit your comments, as many as you want, and pass this information to others.
Wake up Idaho!
Previous articles introduced the reader to the America's Great Outdoors Initiative by the Obama administration in 2010. Multiple federal agencies were tasked with implementing this initiative through interagency coordination. One section of the initiative was to "Build upon State, local, private, and tribal priorities for the conservation of land, water, wildlife...creating corridors and connectivity across these outdoor spaces...and determine how the Federal Government can best advance those priorities through public private partnerships and locally supported conservation strategies." What this initiative really did is put United Nation (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO) in charge.
Federal agencies created twenty two large landscape conservation cooperatives (LCC) across the United States. The Great Northern LCC (GNLCC) was discussed in previous articles and how it is affecting southeast Idaho, specifically Island Park, but the GNLCC also extends into central and northern Idaho.
The Great Basin (GBLCC) takes the rest, covering southern Idaho as well as parts of Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and even into California. As they see it, there are no jurisdictional boundaries between states because wildlife doesn't live within boundaries. And wildlife overrules humans.
Aside from federal agencies colluding between themselves, they have given power to initiatives such as the Heart of the Rockies (HOTR), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), and High Divide (HD) to do the work for them. All of them are connected to UN NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and International Union For Conservation Of Nature (IUCN).
The map below shows the targeted areas in central and north Idaho by the HD and Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC), a Y2Y initiative.
In north Idaho the GNLCC is focusing on connectivity in the Clearwater area using the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule. The Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC) will be used as a transboundary link connecting wildlife between British Columbia and Idaho. Y2Y has formed a collaborative conservation framework for the CPMC region and together they want wildlife to move freely across all jurisdictional boundaries. These folks don't accept the concept of sovereignty and are working aggressively to "secure private lands". Here is the amount of land being pursued in northern Idaho. But the GNLCC doesn't limit it to wildlife, it also includes "ecological connectivity". Ecological captures everything.
The GBLCC seems to like working with everyone except Idaho, including California, Arizona, Texas, and others. Working with all of these folks, not you, the GBLCC created a Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Strategic Plan (S-TEK). Priority topics include adaptation to changes in water availability and ecosystem structure and function. Basically this plan prepares them in deciding what they are going to do to those who live in southern Idaho, and you can bet your booties that it includes land conservation, including wetlands and riparian areas. For the cattle ranchers, look out. The grand plan for you is figuring out how grazing affects sage-grouse, the effects of spring grazing, and the pièces de résistance is possibly halting all grazing for four years just to see what happens.
The Idaho Cattle Association expressed some consternation about the federal land management agencies’ plans to manage sage grouse habitat. Along with the removal of junipers this has been the plan all along. Hmm, let's see what will happen if we damage the land by changing it, and when it becomes damaged, then we can justify restoring it. Of course, after restoring it then it must be protected and conserved so it won't be damaged again. Scientific management is the excuse being used to control land use because technocrats don't think anyone else knows how except them. Why, the GBLCC even has their hands in connectivity, including for the pygmy rabbit.
This story goes far beyond what has been written. Just understand, these LCCs have nothing better to do than create ways in which to justify taking over land for environmental and wildlife purposes, pushing Idahoans out while banning access or use, dictating how the land can be used, all in order to conserve it for people who have not even been born. There is no federal law that gives any one of these groups authority to do what they are doing but these same vicious groups are actively lobbying for such laws, and are already deeply embedded with Idaho agencies. They are not American in their thinking, they don't believe in how our Republic was designed to operate, they only believe in their own ideology.
Wake up Idaho, all of you. This covert agenda will eventually win if action is not taken to oppose it.
One cannot escape the fact that NGOs, landscape initiatives, and other individuals are embedded with federal government agencies such as the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These groups also have powerful lobbying within both the state and federal government with large amounts of money backing their efforts. Their voice has succeeded in overpowering citizen's voices.
Over the last several years these same groups have been studying the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP). The SWAP was created by each state and although they vary in focus the primary objective is identifying species and habitat of greatest conservation need (SGCN), threats to them, and proposing conservation plans that will be monitored for effectiveness. SWAP is seen as a "living" document that can be updated and revised at regular intervals depending on how the plan is working. These groups are scrutinizing those objectives to intervene during revisions.
In 2012, the Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, literally scoured 49 SWAP plans in the U.S., evaluating the language and content for keywords such as wildlife or habitat connectivity and linkage, and possible references towards incorporating these concepts into large-scale conservation plans. Corridors and movement were two other keywords that were counted. These groups see the SWAP as nothing more than an opportunity for a single framework, a national data set that evaluates and compares conservation planning efforts with no jurisdictional lines between or within states, only conformity with standards they want so desperately to define and control. Idaho would no longer be creating standards for Idaho, or standards that Idahoans want.
Because some SWAP plans omitted this type of language it was seen as a hindrance to "...coordinated nationwide planning...". Eleven plans succeeded in meeting their criteria for what they consider best practices.
This study was done for the purpose of identifying how SWAP plans could be revised to include more language and focus on the goals for connectivity and integration of what they consider are best practices, stating, "...increasing the emphasis on wildlife linkages, using common language, and incorporating these best practices can directly improve subsequent iterations of SWAP...". Since the Idaho SWAP is a "living" document with periodic monitoring for revisions these groups and lobbyists will be ready to make their case for the insertion of connectivity and linkage language into the plan. Since they are already tied into these agencies it shouldn't be very hard to accomplish.
The Gary Tabor organization, Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), used the Gulf states SWAP to integrate their agenda, "...working to ensure that they play a foundational role in the GCPO’s Landscape Conservation Design (a.k.a. Conservation Blueprint). To that end the GCPO LCC has invited SWAP leaders to actively participate in the design process..." and "...will help ensure that the work the GCPO LCC does is value-added by integrating States’ plans across administrative boundaries...". The Great Lakes was another target. LCCN is literally drooling over SWAP plans for their pernicious agenda. The Greater Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), a federal program that coordinates these groups, also sees SWAP as "The first step towards integrating landscape efforts", along with the Defenders of Wildlife.
This is how the game is played, study the prey, find an opening, then manipulate it for advantages in self-serving agendas. Idaho citizens will not have a say in this in spite of their right to representation. But Idaho Statute, Title 36 36-2405(5) states "The governor’s office of species conservation may petition the responsible public agencies to initiate rulemaking to facilitate the implementation of the approved management plan." and (7) "Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as granting the department of fish and game with new or additional authority." Since Governor Otter is part of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) that partners with the federal government for this conservation agenda, it is highly unlikely rulemaking will be requested. Citizen input for SWAP was not pursued aggressively as with scientists, NGOs, and other outside groups. A public hearing was held in Boise in January, 2016, a Wednesday and Thursday, when people are working, in the dead of winter. Idaho citizens should have first priority for input with these other groups taking a subordinate role.
Per Idaho statute there is no authority to enforce SWAP and in spite of getting connectivity or linkage language into the SWAP there is no authority to force it on Idaho citizens. Individuals employed by NGOs and other initiatives work full time implementing their agenda while Idahoans work to earn a living, making it very difficult to find the time needed to oppose this agenda. But it must be done, now.
Technocracy and Land Control
Technocracy is "a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives." The right to representation is removed from citizens while these "experts", also known as technocrats, believe they possess impeccable scientific knowledge and are therefore masters of all solutions. Land issues are the perfect example to describe technocracy implementation.
Data gathering is the essence of technocracy, examining everything at a microscopic level, so miniscule that the broader picture is obscured. Technocrats believe every species, plant, speck of dirt, drop of water, and human on land needs detailed examination for ultimate management. This is all based on the irrational fear that humans will overpopulate, necessitating the conservation of land for humans that don't even exist. But the truth is, land is rich with resources needed for life. Because technocrats believe land and its resources will be consumed by too many humans, then both must be conserved and controlled, now. That is the deception. Once the data is collected, it will be used for the goal of controlling and managing all resources, and humans.
Created in 2005 by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was just for this purpose, bringing together a group of various technocrats for gathering data on species and habitat which might need conservation.
Idaho was broken into fourteen "ecological sections", transcending all jurisdictional boundaries, with the next ten years spent on inventorying fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats, mapping their locations with geographic information system (GIS) layers for analysis. Scientific names were added to traditional names for wildlife and plants. A deer can no longer stand on its own as a beautiful creature, it has to be detailed as to type, what it eats, and where it lives.
In ten years, with all this data stockpiled, what was a strategy now became a plan, the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). While this discussion focuses on Idaho, the federal government funded SWAP plans in every state, and the agenda is the same.
The list of technocratic "experts" was expanded for this plan. From the CWCS, 205 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were identified, along with their habitat, ecology, and threat information. Not being detailed enough these species were then placed into "tiers" with ranking for conservation need. Going further, species were detailed in each ecological section. For good measure, all vertebrates and invertebrates in the state were inventoried. The more details the better. This resulted in a 411 page document that describes in excruciating detail the species description, conservation status, population trend, habitat, threats, needed conservation action, and other laborious data which will be used to justify the need for regulations that will remove the threat, justifying continued need for conservation.
IDFG will need to implement a monitoring system for any changes in this data and that includes more GIS data layers. Needing further detail, the effectiveness of the monitoring will need to be monitored. Adaptive management is used by technocrats to incorporate new information for managing species and habitats. Using "conceptual models", technocrats try to predict desired outcomes for different approaches in conservation to determine if a desired outcome is achieved. In other words, experimenting around with nature.
If any of these species or habitat are identified on private property, what will IDFG do? They will have to protect both by regulating your land. Will technocrats have that authority? Because of their power within government agencies technocrats are the likely ones that will make the regulatory decisions.
The graphic tells the truth, how microscopic data will lead to regulations that will control how land is used, "influencing day to day compliance", requiring "permit approval", all for the purpose of controlling humans.
Technocracy is the non-violent weapon being used to wage war on America, its citizens, and our system of government. As more data is gathered this weapon will become more powerful in its governance over our lives. There will be no end to it unless citizens exercise their Constitutional right to representation over technocratic agendas.
This is the last of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Part four exposed those who are involved in the effort to redesign Island Park. How Island Park residents are being excluded as a primary voice in decisions was exposed in part five. Now that the full truth is out, where does Island Park go from here?
So now the truth is out. There are substantial organizations and foundations that work with federal agencies to promote connecting large landscapes into conservation with eventual regulatory requirements that will dictate how the Island Park community will be designed and how a property owners will be required to design their own land, or even use it. This is a covert agenda by outside groups, NGOs, and both state and federal governments to alter Island Park into some man made design, making it look like a zoo where wildlife can be "enjoyed" rather than letting her exist naturally as she has for generations.
The starting point is wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), the Elk who cross US 20 two times a year on their migratory path. Although Targhee Pass is identified as a primary area of crossing and need for an overpass, the Elk actually make their crossing a few miles south of Bighorn Hills. This would require fencing which would force the Elk to alter their natural path.
No Elk, or any other wildlife, should die on their journey. The WVC numbers vary depending on which source is cited. All studies were conducted for the specific outcome of overpasses and connectivity while downplaying other alternatives, or even consideration for other possible options. Has the number of WVC, or even the number of Elk deaths increased in 50 years? Those numbers are never mentioned. These initiatives, NGOs, and government agencies with a massive agenda have decided to make the Elk an issue, with their bias, to implement their predetermined solutions.
Those who are part of this agenda, these initiatives, will try to dissuade us from accepting the truth, controlling and manipulating the dialogue on compassion for wildlife and the "threat of human-wildlife conflict", while continuing to hide what is coming next and who is involved. That "conflict" is a fabrication from their fantasies. The perception that there is no compassion for the Elk will be promoted. They will try to marginalize folks who do not support their agenda and who are willing to listen to the truth. A negative impression of those who oppose the initiative will be painted as uncaring and disrespectful towards the beautiful animals we all care about. None of this is true. This type of rhetoric is only to distract from the truth, while defining you as the enemy. The larger discussion about private property restrictions and impacts, fencing, acquisition, multiple use reductions, other wildlife and endangered species, the bison and brucellosis, and the connectivity agenda have all been avoided and hidden, and will continue to be avoided if allowed by Island Park guardians. Elk are loved just as much by those who seek the truth. Perhaps their love for the Elk is greater for not wanting to change their natural habitat, forcing them into a man made environment. There is no reason to be ashamed for wanting to protect them and Island Park.
Our Founding Fathers believed property rights exemplified the foundation of liberty.
“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams
“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay (First Chief Justice)
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
And others believed this as well.
“The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” Arthur Lee
“Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” Calvin Coolidge
Property rights are the most precious gift of our Republic. We are not a democracy where the mob rules, we are a Republic and a nation whose foundation is based on laws, laws that protect our rights. Because we are not a democracy, and in spite of what they may believe, the masses of individuals, groups, government agencies, and wealth behind this agenda do not rule. Fabricated changes to boundaries and rules about land by those with ideological beliefs must never be accepted.
It seems most conflicts in the world are centered around the theft of property, the taking of land from others, often leading to battle. The theft occurring now is different in that there is no battle, but the war is the same.
Island Park is sovereign, independent from Yellowstone Park, with clear jurisdictional boundaries, not only at a city and county level, but at the state level. These boundaries must be protected and defended.
Island Park citizens must come together. They must become knowledgeable about NGOs, federal and state laws, and understand their rights. Understanding the hidden agenda is critical to understanding what rights will be taken from them. Citizens must ask questions, demand answers, and stand up for their rights, both as an Island Park resident and private property owner.
Others must be educated on the issues and brought on board with regular meetings that keep everyone current on the issues. When not in residency everyone should stay connected through all means of social media, emails, and other methods, sharing information as it becomes available. Move the discussion beyond compassion for the Elk to the real issues being hidden.
Coalition groups or advisory committees should be created to insist that your voice is the primary voice that must be heard with NGOs and other initiatives taking a back seat. Let them know their agenda is not welcome.
A broader discussion in solving WVC is needed with other solutions brought forth, including alternatives that haven't been given any consideration. And there are others. If the technocrats say an alternative is not beneficial, research it, find out what other areas have tried them, and the results. Come up with new ideas and solutions and present them to ITD. Keep the pressure on them to listen. Land alteration and forcing a change in the migration path of Elk are not the only answers to protect them.
As the guardians of Island Park, to those who are most bonded and connected to the land, stand up for her right to exist naturally, and your rights. Become involved and never allow anyone to change it into an artificially designed, faux zoo landscape. Appreciation for Island Park comes from how it has always existed.
This is the fifth of a six part series. The reader is highly encouraged to go to these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
It is critical to understand the massive number of organizations who are involved in this connectivity agenda and who align with government agencies to advance it.
In 2010, the Obama administration issued a memorandum, creating the America's Great Outdoors Initiative without any federal legislation, and assigning eight federal agencies to implement it. Two objectives were the creation of "corridors and connectivity", and advancing those "priorities through public private partnerships". A DOI order created 22 large landscape cooperatives across the U.S. with Island Park sitting in the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC). These cooperatives were tasked with coordinating all landscape conservation groups, including partnering federal agencies, placing land into conservation, and connecting them into large landscapes. There are 56 landscape initiatives that belong to the GNLCC including Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Greater Yellowstone Coalition Committee (GYCC), Western Governors Association (WGA), and multiple land trusts. Here is their Steering Committee.
But there are other large landscape conservation groups as well.
Gary Tabor is the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLN), co-founded the Y2Y Conservation Initiative, the Roundtable of the COC, and co-designed the Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative. The Conservation Corridor, an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) program, facilitates wildlife corridor and ecological connectivity conservation, of which Mr. Tabor is the regional leader Vice Chair. As recent as 2016, Mr. Tabor was participating with the IUCN for Areas of Connectivity Conservation. Here is the CLLN network of partners.
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), "is the collective of the 22 LCCs collectively", whose council consists of the BLM, USFS, NPS, USFWS, among others; NGOs NatureServe and TNC; four international participants; and the CLLC.
The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC), was created by the University of Montana and Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (LILP). Their mission is "helping people work effectively across boundaries to...protect...or connect natural systems at the large landscape scale...", and support an "enduring system of protected and connected natural systems at the large landscape scale." Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield are on the coordinating committee. The LILP has a Large Landscape Conservation Strategic Framework for Policy and Action.
The WGA plans to launch a pilot project for wildlife mapping, identifying areas where development can occur with minimal impacts to wildlife, with Island Park being one project areas. Phase 1 includes inventorying species, habitat, unfragmented landscapes, protected habitats, and geographic features while evaluating connectivity tools and models in cooperation with NatureServe and WCS ongoing efforts to formulate connectivity best management practices. The project promises to contact all relevant stakeholders within the pilot area at the initiation of the project, including but not be limited to: Y2Y, WCS, and TNC. The project intends to hold at least 2 "stakeholder" meetings, with Island Park being one of those communities. By the end of Phase 1 they plan on having a "Completed connectivity/linkage plan identifying steps, tools, and outcomes for producing a connectivity data layer for the entire ID‐MT divide project area." The NGOs and HD must be thrilled. No start date was listed.
The Brainerd Foundation funds the NGOs Earthjustice, TNC, SC, WS, and NWF; COC, GYC, Y2Y, FW, and HOR initiatives; the Henry's Fork Foundation and Sonoran Institute. The Sonoran Institute partners with the TNC, WS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Wilburforce Foundation (WCS partner) funds Y2Y, and the Turner foundation also funds these agendas.
As one can see, there are a substantial number of groups involved in this connectivity agenda, as well as money pouring in from wealthy individuals with the same ideology, and your tax dollar. But where are the voices whose heritage is bonded and connected to Island Park? Their voice, with first rights in importance, has been left out.
The US 20 Corridor has a website specific to the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment (EA) phase of the project. It states ITD, following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, is initiating an EA to evaluate risks, benefits, opportunities and costs associated with reconstruction of Targhee Pass, with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead agency.
ITD has been studying the US 20 transportation corridor for 13 years, working with IDFG and the Henry's Fork Legacy Project (HFLP), assessing its condition, and identifying necessary improvements. Three studies were conducted during that time. 2014 (Cramer) - Methodology for Prioritizing Appropriate Mitigation Actions to Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions on Idaho Highways; 2014 (Seidler) - US 20 Island Park Wildlife Collision Study - an examination of Road Ecology in the Island Park Caldera: Elk and Moose migration across US Highway 20 - Final Report; and 2016 (Cramer) - Safety Solutions for Wildlife Vehicle Collisions on Idaho’s US 20 and SH 87. Technocrats and individuals from outside the area have the lead voice here.
According to the website it was also during this time "one-on-one conversations with local agencies, municipalities, tribes and other key stakeholders" also took place, which were used for the Targhee Pass Environmental Study. ITD states comments on wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC) were "received in the scoping phase" of the study. Aside from the IDFG, HFLP, and technocrats, who? What Tribes?
The website states the NEPA process begins when a federal agency develops a proposal to take a major federal action or (as in this case) when federal funds would be utilized to implement a project. Federal funds were approved for this project in October, 2016. So the NEPA process was started prior to the funding? What does federal law say?
§ 23 CFR 771.119 Environmental Assessments, § 771.111 Early coordination, Public involvement, and Project Development, and § 450.210 Interested parties, Public involvement, and Consultation, all require public involvement for transportation planning and actions requiring an EA. This is accomplished through an early coordination process and is incorporated into the EA which should be available for public inspection. One or more public hearings...at a convenient time and place for any...project which requires significant amounts of right-of-way, substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting roadways...or has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property are also part of the law. The state is also required to develop and use a documented public involvement process that provides opportunities for public review and comment at key decision points. What opportunity for involvement were citizens granted during the studies, or even from the beginning 13 years ago?
§ 23 USC 128: Public Hearings states, "Any State transportation department which submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving the by passing of or, going through any city, town, or village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and has considered the economic and social effects of such a location, its impact on the environment, and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community." The ITD excluded all of this. Were public hearings held regarding proposed actions on the corridor, during a time when all were in residency?
The website claims "The first step in the environmental assessment process is called scoping. This is an opportunity for the community to help identify issues and concerns specific to the study corridor." According to their timeline a study initiation and stakeholder assessment occurred in October, 2016. One public meeting was held in December with comments incorporated to refine alternatives and impact assessment methods in January, 2017. The subsequent April meeting was cancelled. The ITD Corridor Planning Guidebook mandates public participation and county official involvement at the beginning of any proposed project. Does it sound like the public and county criteria were met? How could it be the initiation of the project when studies had already been conducted, deals were made with other agencies, and only select groups involved?
Community based organizations are also listed as important groups for outreach. Aside from the HFLP, the majority who don't live in Island Park, what other community based organizations were contacted? Island Park residents should give serious consideration to creating a Civic Advisory Committee for transportation decisions, separate from NGOs and select groups, for comprehensive perspectives. More importantly, this project should be started over and conducted according to the law.
The ITD has clearly failed in meeting the public involvement requirement during the transportation planning. Open houses were scheduled during months when the majority were not in residence, and when the most difficult winter road conditions existed. A public hearing was never offered during a time when all were in residency. In addition, required socio-economic factors were clearly not included in the proposal or in any of the studies. Is it possible neither the NGOs or the ITD wanted the truth to come out?
If this Targhee Pass project moves forward, Island Park better prepare for possible land use planning changes that will follow. As previously mentioned, Northwest Property Owners Association (NWPOA) went through this nightmare but successfully stopped it. Their local NGO attempted to incorporate restrictive regulations into their county comprehensive plan which included: requirements for using qualified design professionals; assessments and studies for professional design and best management practices; zoning restrictions; impact fees; development moratoriums; growth limits; and incorporation of state and/or federal laws. ScienceDirect has an excellent article, Land use planning: A potential force for retaining habitat connectivity in the GYE and Beyond, that is full of the scams taking place now, including the belief that "...counties could exert more power in controlling private land development." Defenders of Wildlife promote using State Wildlife Action Plans to link conservation with land use planning. Both are worth reading to understand future agendas if this connectivity project moves forward.
Conclusion in Part 6.
Corridors to Connectivity
This is the fourth of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Now it is time to put all of it together with connectivity, the true agenda.
Here is the map of the boundaries in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), where the corridors and components lay.
Keeping corridors within the ecosystem boundary is the foundation for connectivity with Island Park as a prime target in the GYE. NGOs and scientists are using the US 20 Corridor and Elk migration to advance connectivity at Targhee Pass. It has nothing to do with saving Elk, the Elk are being used for emotional manipulation and a distraction. Several targeted areas for redesign have now been narrowed down to just the Targhee Pass, only because it is the closest site for connectivity. With the Strategic Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identification of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and priority habitat conservation, along with other corridors, the plan has been established for sequential, consecutive, and progressive steps towards connectivity in the GYE, giving wildlife "room to roam". Island Park has a yellow star for high connectivity, this connectivity plan has been in the works for several years, and that is why she is being targeted.
Scientists and NGOs believe connectivity is needed for species population persistence, ensuring that one or many species can move freely throughout the landscape. Because they also believe humans cause connectivity "fragmentation" with land development, a highly aggressive effort is underway to convince land owners to place their land into conservation easements (CE), restrict or ban road use, restrict development and growth boundaries, buy land, and take advantage of road corridors for halting fragmentation. To these groups, connectivity means highly restricted human use to none at all. Corridors and connectivity are the means to control land use. Once land is in their possession, regardless of being a CE, protected or restricted area, or any other designation, control of that land will be dictated by the government, NGOs, and land trust groups.
If your county elected officials allow it, these groups will try and convince them to change land use planning in comprehensive plans, forcing you to comply with conservation measures on your property, reduce land use, and dictate or halt how you use your land. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has already "provided site-specific science in this region to aid Fremont County, Idaho to prepare a comprehensive growth and subdivision plan that considers the importance of protecting biodiversity and wildlife migration corridors." The Northwest Property Owners Alliance (NWPOA) in northern Idaho has already been through it and can tell you what will happen if your county acquiesces. They experienced the same dynamics being used by the US 20 Corridor study team including failure to notify, misinformation, and domination by special interest groups. Their article on environmentalism really captures what Island Park is experiencing.
In 2015, after two years of steering committee meetings (including UN NGOs and Canada), the Greater Northern Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) released a preliminary "Connectivity Pilot Project" report and "...selected connectivity as a priority shared landscape objective...". The second of four objectives was to, "Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes." The corridors discussed in part three, plus the others listed here will all be used to justify placing Island Park into a massive, large scale, conservation area and eventual integration into the GYE as a protected area, under complete conservation status, with controlled land use. This agenda has been in the works for years, using Elk and the US 20 corridor is just the first step.
Their "data basin" is used to "inventory connectivity data"..."identify important areas for action"..."identify potential connectivity opportunities"...with the data also capturing..."'human footprint’ layers"..."land use stressors that may be expected to impact connectivity"..."as well as map layers representing jurisdictional boundaries."
Island Park is specifically targeted in this report. Using the High Divide (HD) as their "connection", the short term objective included mitigating US 20 and Hwy 87 corridors and habitat augmentation at highway crossings. Long term objectives included annexing Henry's Fork and Island Park from the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GBLCC) to GNLCC; supporting collaborative work of state and federal agencies, and NGOs to conserve private lands and connect public lands; focusing on landscape water conservation; implementing highway mitigation for key linkages; and creating disincentives for wildlife urban interface (WUI-zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development).
Participants in this report included Gary Tabor, Michael Whitfield, Gregg Servheen, and Renee Seidler, the new ITD road ecologist expert for the US 20 Corridor plan. Ms. Seidler has stated her belief in connectivity, her other work is on connectivity, the cooperative agreement between the ITD and IDFG states the job responsibilities included developing programmatic and site specific information and criteria on wildlife connectivity, and her job description states the same.
Conveniently, IDFG Wildlife Coordinator, Gregg Servheen, is on the GNLCC Steering Committee mentioned above, and signed the contract between IDFG and ITD for the position Ms. Seidler eventually took through the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). Mr. Servheen also works on helping you turn your land over for conservation easements (CE) through the Private Landowner Network, or find conservation resources. He worked with the Western Governor's Association (WGA) to build data bases on biological information for preserving wildlife corridors and habitats, and the goal to "complete a connectivity/linkage plan" along the High Divide. While all of this gives the appearance of impropriety, it is nothing more than a self-created, conglomerate of government agencies and NGOs, operating under no legal authority, working without public involvement on plans to address issues they created, disguising it as their concern about wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), and which will eventually be used as an excuse for wildlife connectivity. WVC are nothing more than a distraction to keep you from learning about the connectivity agenda. A copy of the contract can be downloaded here.
In fact, the ITD and IDFG were so confident the US 20 Corridor project was in the bag, they hired Ms. Seidler by April 17th to move on to the connectivity phase. This was at least 10 days prior to the cancelled April 27th meeting that was supposed to include Island Park residents and their input.
Ms. Seidler is well prepared for this job having previously conducted a study with IDFG in 2014 called: US 20, Island Park Wildlife Collision Study, An examination of Road Ecology in the Island Park Caldera: Elk and Moose Migration Across US Highway 20. The summary states, "Conservation and mitigation efforts for Elk and Moose...will likely have significant positive impacts on habitat connectivity...". A copy of this report can be downloaded here.
The GNLCC held a major workshop in 2015, Conservation of Continental Connectivity through Community Based Collaboration. Presenting at this workshop, the High Divide celebrated their increase in CE from 194,483 acres to 1.2 million in 9 years, and their work in connecting large core protected areas and wildlife connectivity. Their goal is Ecological linkage between protected core areas to conserve wide-‐ranging wildlife in response to climate change, not WVC. To them, "Working Across Boundaries" includes "Local expertise—stakeholder input". This has rarely been sought from Island Park, but rather from an assembly of scientists, government officials, and NGOs, few who even have one connection to Island Park. The goal is complete "protected" connectivity in large landscape areas where Island Park sits. GNLCC held a Resource Managers Connectivity workshop in April, 2015, with Ms. Seidler as a participant and Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield as speakers. Mr. Whitfield was also on the program committee for the 2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation held in Washington, D.C.. Federal government agencies and NGOs comprised 76% of the participants, with only 1% landowners participating.
As the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Gary Tabor has created both a Connectivity Conservation Hub in partnership with the GNLCC, located in Jackson, and a Ecological Connectivity Project with all the data and maps needed to conserve "a permable (sic) landscape with connectivity across its geography". According to Mr. Tabor, "A corridor is a distinct component of the landscape that provides connectivity. Wildlife corridors specifically facilitate the movement of animals, while other types of corridors may support connectivity for plants or ecological processes."
The Ecological Connectivity Project brings "managers" together who focus on connectivity. "The goal of the project is to conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes." Michael Whitfield from the High Divide is also involved. This project does not include any Island Park residents, only government officials, NGOs, and initiative leaders. The justification for this project are primarily based on executive orders, policy resolutions, white papers, secretarial orders, and regulatory decisions that are not found in Idaho or federal law. However, GNLCC funding for 2017 is directed towards supporting this project for water, species, terrestrial and migration connectivity in large landscapes, your tax dollar.
Hidden on a US Geological Survey website is the 2015 proposal, "Landscape Conservation Design in the High Divide" with Mr. Whitfield as the Project Coordinator, and who is also the executive director of the Heart of the Rockies (HOR) initiative. Multiple NGOs, land trusts, and federal and state agencies are involved. The project summary "...seeks support to identify and evaluate future landscape configurations...emphasizing wildlife connectivity between large protected core areas..." such as Yellowstone. The need for "Landscape Conservation Design" was cited as one of the elements of the USFWS Strategic Habitat Conservation Plan. "A conservation design (cluster development) is a type of “Planned Unit Development” in which the underlying zoning and subdivision ordinances are modified to allow buildings (usually residences) to be grouped together on part of the site while permanently protecting the remainder of the site from development." This project supports the GNLCC Strategic Conservation Framework, one goal being to "Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems...". All of the data collection will be used to redesign Island Park into some artificial utopian paradise, rather than let her exist as she has for centuries, or be developed through local representation. And with all due respect sir, do not lump residents into a "Human Modification Index. Workshops on this project were supposedly held in Nov 15' through Fed 16', conveniently when most residents were not available. This is how subversive these groups are. A copy of the proposal can be downloaded here.
These individuals and groups have been working with each other, making decisions about Island Park and the residents, behind their backs. Do those who live in Island Park want their covert plans?
The following initiatives and organizations are actively involved in the connectivity agenda: Heart of the Rockies (HOR); Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and Future West (FW).
"Although America's national parks include some of the wildest places on Earth, no park in the U.S....is large enough to support the full range of native biological diversity over the long-term. In order to accommodate wide-ranging animals...our parks must be connected to other protected areas via wildlife corridors and their boundaries should be expanded wherever possible." (Rewilding Our National Parks)
A brief word why so many "experts" are making the decisions. These scientists are actually technocrats, experts in science who have a lot of power in, or influence with the government and are an adherent of technocracy. Technocracy is the power shift from elected representatives and bureaucrats to technocrats (engineers, managers, scientists); management of society by technical experts; or a society that is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. Is this not where we are at? Patrick Wood has a series of excellent videos on his website, Technocracy News and Trends, that provide valuable insight into how our government has transitioned over to these "experts" and away from the people. It is the responsibility of elected officials to listen to those who elected them, not technocrats or special interest groups, or those who are not Fremont county residents. Have we abdicated our inherent power and responsibility of self-governance to others? Or has it been stolen from us?
No efforts have been taken to disclose or involve Island Park residents in these plans, no alternatives to overpasses and fencing have been discussed, no input has been sought from anyone except the UN NGOs, cooperatives, technocrats, and government agencies, and No discussion has ever taken place on their plans for connectivity. Studies were conducted for the US 20 Corridor plan without required prior notification to Island Park residents. And why should they bother, the protection of Elk is not the issue, it is a distraction from what they are really planning.
All evidence points to the agenda for connectivity, on websites, in reports, participants own statements, and in studies. The ITD, their study team, NGOs, and initiatives have not been transparent with Island Park residents, misrepresented what they are actually doing, and have violated every drop of what is ethical. Shame on all of them.
It is important to remember, there is no federal legislation for this agenda. What law allows arbitrary erasure of jurisdictional boundaries? This is a concerted effort by individuals and groups with an ideology, who have successfully engaged the government with the same ideology, and are proceeding forward without any laws. Island Park has a population of 286 as of 2016. That swells to several thousand during the summer when residents come to their summer homes. The number of individuals pursuing this connectivity and conservation agenda are in the thousands, with millions of dollars being funneled into it. Island Park residents, who own homes and pay taxes, are the guardians of Island Park, and who elect city and country officials to represent them. Officials are obligated to listen to their voice, not special interest groups from other states or counties. The technocrats and elite who believe they know better, and who hide their agenda, are usurping those rights. Is this what Fremont County citizens want?
The Declaration of Independence states governments derive "...their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Idaho Constitution, Article I, Section 2 states, "All political power is inherent in the people." It is time to recapture the self governance our Founding Fathers created for us.
No individual wants Elk harmed and WVC must certainly be addressed. However, tearing up and environmentally engineering the land for ulterior motives is not the solution, there are other alternatives beyond what the technocrats say won't work that require consideration. Island Park residents should be the lead in discussing these alternatives, how they want to protect her and the Elk, and the ones who hold the right to make those decisions.
These technocrats and NGOs have zero connection to Island Park, spending their time reducing it to nothing more than a mathematical formula, and assigning point values for the purpose of artificially engineering it into something that it isn't. There is no Island Park asset that has more or less value than another and in spite of what they say or believe, this land is not "fragmented" by us, it is fully connected in every way. They are welcome to visit and walk on the path they designated, but respectfully, do not come to Island Park for environmental engineering, passing it off as a transportation project for saving wildlife when your true goal is connectivity and "conservation design". As her Guardians, Island Park is ours to protect, not yours to alter.
Part 5 will reveal where all of this originated.
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!