It is near impossible trying to narrow down the exact United Nations (UN) version of ecosystem management as the information is a conglomeration of different booklets, articles, and ideas with multiple UN organizations that go on, and on, and on. When tying in the federal government it gets even more complex. So, ecosystems will be taken one subject at a time.
In 2015 Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, came up with this brilliant plan to "restore and protect" sagebrush, the Comprehensive Rangeland Fire Strategy to Restore & Protect Sagebrush Lands. One more joke of an idea. Following this announcement came the Soda Fire which destroyed more than just land, it destroyed species, habitat and private property as well. Now that the UN and federal government have joined hands for ecosystem management, to "control or direct human practices, species populations, and physical environment" as a means to protect ecosystems, sagebrush becomes a specific target because it is an ecosystem link with sage grouse habitat and other native species or grasses. Jewell states, "The plan's landscape-scale approach emphasizes sustainability of entire ecosystems...", while "addressing the spread of cheatgrass." This endeavor intends to "...conserve and protect sagebrush habitat...".
Now it is always interesting to note references of support from individuals for these obtuse plans, in this case ranchers. Jewell should be challenged on this claim, to identify just who those "ranchers" are that support her land destruction policies. The Idaho Cattle Lobby certainly doesn't agree with her.
One group was identified, the Idaho Rangeland Fire Protection Associations, where ranchers form groups to assist with firefighting efforts throughout the state. As important, and far more trustworthy as these ranchers are for protecting Idaho lands, would it not be more wise to let them engage in land practices that prevent fires in the first place? In spite of the years of knowledge these ranchers possess, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) thinks these Idahoans are not competent enough to manage a fire without their blessing. How dare they pass judgement on an Idaho rancher. The claim of "Ranchers backing Jewell’s order..." seems farfetched, it is more suspicious that these groups formed to protect the land from the BLM.
Oregon ranchers videotaped evidence of BLM officials using fire management to destroy land, private property, and animals near Frenchglen, Harney County. These ranchers were helpless to intervene for fear of arrest. Who in their right mind deliberately destroys all of this? Any BLM official reading this is invited to respond on the reasoning for this action.
In Jewell's grand scheme cheatgrass is a targeted ecosystem component because it tends to take over other native species and contributes to fire loads. Once again grazing is targeted as one cause. The BLM generalizes cheatgrass overgrowth to "disturbed" land which can encompass humans, recreational users, or any other reason to keep our land free from our use.
Claims of now using a “science-based” approach is laughable, and just where is the science coming from? By Jewell's own admission, "Many fire rehabilitation efforts have failed in previous decades because federal officials planted the wrong species of the similar-looking sagebrush." Shocker, the feds screwed it up. The Society of Range Management has an interesting article on cheatgrass and grazing in Nevada going back to the 1940's. It was determined that cows and sheep prefer cheatgrass. If cattle were allowed to graze cheatgrass in the spring there was secondary damage to other desired native plants but it also reduced the fire load during the summer. However, "Native perennial grasses can be grazed in the spring, but not repeatedly every year, or excessively in any one year, and the grasses must be given a chance to recover." The article also noted that "...grazing management to reduce cheatgrass as a fuel for wildfires has to include late spring grazing in years with enough soil moisture for abundant tiller growth." In addition, if grazing cheatgrass in the fall is allowed during seed proliferation there is less growth of cheatgrass.
Jewell's botched restoration plan for native plant species is to "solve that problem by using local seeds or seeds from the correct species found at similar elevations and growing conditions." Hello? According to the Nevada article, "No one has been consistently successful with large-scale artificial seedings of native perennial grasses in the face of competition from cheatgrass." However, using herbicide and tillage with cheatgrass competition in 1942 and the 1950's and 60's succeeded in establishing wheatgrass. Maybe this article should be sent to Jewell for "proven" science rather than science out of the UN.
"If ranchers and land managers are going to graze cheat-grass, they must have the flexibility to adjust existing grazing systems to fit the actual forage production on a given year without the expensive and time-consuming preparation of a new Environmental Assessment." A "rest–rotation grazing system" is needed as an asset to address cheatgrass issues. "On Federally managed rangelands the wheels of bureaucracy often have difficulty with changing grazing management systems to fit the exceptional years for cheatgrass production." No, they and the UN really want the land destroyed as an excuse to restore it, control it, and keep us from using it.
"There have been some reports and articles written up about the potential
for reducing catastrophic fires with grazing. There is a lot of opposition against this kind of project, however, from environmental groups. It goes against their philosophy of land management. They don’t want to acknowledge a beneficial use for cattle or this would negate their whole strategy and agenda for removing cattle from public land" (pg 5). Most of these environmental groups are UN non-governmental organizations.
How about putting goats out there, they like cheatgrass? Oh wait, no, let's create a National Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation Area instead!!! This meets the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) strategic plan using the Aichi Biodiversity Strategic Goal C, "To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems...", Target 12 "...the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status has been improved and maintained." Of course, to be accomplished by 2020.
The BLM is proud to use the UN tool "rapid ecoregional assessment" and recognizes the CBD on page 1 of their booklet about the snake river plain.
This is just the beginning of using ecosystem management as an excuse to steal more land from Americans, ban land use, push landowners into cities, and continue destructive land management practices.
Oh no, we can't have any solution that has already been practiced, it has to all be about control of the land in a manner that is the most destructive to all habitat, species, and the land itself. What does Jewell or any other previous Secretary know about managing a piece of land? At some point it will be the luxury of those who control the land to enjoy and use it, and no one else.
Let Idaho ranchers take over and kick the UN and their BLM buddies out.
Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well. Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.
Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use. The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals. Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call "corporate governance".
One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.
The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America. Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.
Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft. Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies.
According to the Idaho BLM site they control 12 million acres of land in Idaho, with 4,795,820 acres devoted to wilderness designation according to the Wilderness connect. BLM wilderness area is "an area of public lands that Congress has designated for BLM to manage as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964." Here is a map of BLM wilderness in Idaho.
For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM. The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies believe grazing has been harmful to the land, which the BLM claims has lessened since they took control of it. Their solutions have been to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use. Bullcocky, the purpose is to remove humans from their land and take over the resources. These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammond ranch conflicts.
For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land. Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video. Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency.
Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through "Resource Management Plans". As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan. Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements! The BLM is also obligated to "protect endangered species" such as the sage grouse. These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilerness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the ruse is really to ban you from using the land.
It is well understood that wilderness and other "protected" areas are a focus of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a UN NGO and UNEP partner. As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). The IUCN identifies national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves and protected areas. But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes.
"In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre..." the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, for ..."inclusion into UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre's World Database for Protected Areas" and "World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes linking the multiple parcels of a single protected area in PAD-US and connecting them to the Global Community." Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land. Anticipate more species needing protection from you.
Desertification will be the focus of Part 2.
Desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word. Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found. The closest is the word desert, defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy. One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda. As noted in the Savory video in Part 1, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back. As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction. Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use? Shouldn't this have lessened the problem?
As a United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) partner, the Department of Interior (DOI) created the The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI). One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program. And for all the BLM's alleged protection in the GBRI, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land. Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it. Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection.
Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems". "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task.
Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000. According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification. By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them. A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...food security, water scarcity, biodiversity, forest", and of course "gender", whatever that means. The UNCCD is also very interested in renewable energy. Solar and wind are two forms of renewable energy and all of that land with desertification problems is needed for renewable energy production, but there cannot be humans in the way. Keep the renewable energy in mind. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries. The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD. One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8). The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations. That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything.
In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed.
Desertification isn't enough however, ecosystems are also a a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use. Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but originally the BLM defined it as ecosystem management which "...recognizes that natural systems and processes must be sustained in order to meet the social and economic needs of future generations." Their goal was to "...to conserve, restore, and maintain ecological integrity, productivity and biological diversity of public lands." What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present. The only solution is to keep humans away.
Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection. The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals." Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way?
And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural (UNESCO) thinks all wetlands are being destroyed while the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) thinks wetlands should be honored in a World Wetlands Day. UNEP believes wetlands are needed for the economy which makes sense as the UN goal is transforming us to a resource based, or green, economy. The UN Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 lists 4 goals: drivers of wetland degradation, conserving the Ramsar network, wise use of wetlands, and enhancing implementation, with 19 targets while contributinge to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. As a partner with this convention, the United States is implementing these goals. In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources." Water is what this about, all of these organizations want control of all water, and what better way than to encompass all water through ecosystems.
The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for more conservation and preservation of wetlands. According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment. Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states. Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified.
Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working." Oh yeah? How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with their habitat because of your strategies? May the restrictions for human use end.
But federal government ecosystem "protection" will most likely expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private property. The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010. As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species. As a IUCN partner the DOI USFWS and other federal agencies follow these lists.
Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030. "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...". Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators.
Resource theft and conclusion in Part 4.
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".
And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.
GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is captured, stored, manipulated, analyzed, and managed. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.
Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM managed lands include wind, solar, oil, gas, coal, mining, helium, and geothermal projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. With the UN goal to take as much land away from us for its resources, while transforming us to a "green" economy, the BLM is assisting with this goal. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.
Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects. At this point Idaho does not require utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.
The BLM has contracted with Iberdrola. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects. The BLM has ballooned so much they need an outside source, Ameresco, to manage their finances. According to their website, the BLM "generated $75 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2016." What are they, a business or a government agency that is suppose to manage land?
While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. There are negative aspects to wind energy such as it being unreliable and very expensive.
Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones. Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLM ploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.
Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including nearing default on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners like Morgan Stanley so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.
According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site "...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.1 billion, that should hasten the job.
One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying.
Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. Page 4B of this USGS map shows "mineral resource potential" in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.
This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass Energy Projects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on creating renewable energy zones with the Department of Energy.
In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and re-mediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way.
Renewable Energy Credits
This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.
Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.
Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now.
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!