The current president has been hell bent on forcing America into a renewable energy waste bin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is more than happy to participate. But the rush is on because the solar energy plan must be accomplished by 2035.
BLM land has been littered with solar panels since 2012. Because of this current president and his plan to "transition" America to renewable energy, the BLM has been working on updating its 2012 Solar Energy Development plan that involved six states. Now, along with four other states, Idaho is getting sucked into the mix. All of the documents pertaining to this agenda, which BLM has obviously been working on for months, can be found here. Graciously, the BLM has offered the opportunity to go through thousands of pages of information to understand how Idaho will be impacted along with the other four added states. Idahoans have been blessed by the BLM with the opportunity to "Provide input on the 5 action alternatives – including elements from all alternatives to be adopted in a Final Plan" by April 18th. There doesn't appear to be a "no action" alternative. Aside from the gobbledygook in all of the documents, the amount of reading required to go through all of the documents far exceeds what is reasonable. It is insulting how the BLM presents this for input. Cliff notes on the alternatives can be found here, and overall updates here, The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement can be found here, all 538 pages. For those who really have a desire to go to sleep, there is the agonizing redundancy on Areas of Special Concern with only 760 pages, where one can wade through page after page to find something specific to Idaho. These are the proposed alternative areas to litter with solar panels in Idaho. All of the documents can be found on the National NEPA Register page, Input can be provided via the green Participate Now buttons, or on this page. Be patient, it takes a minute to load. It is bad enough the way in which the BLM abuses its power by tossing this out to Idahoans with no chance of receiving adequate input. Governor Little is no better, his cronies and corporate sponsors at the Western Governors Association (WGA) have supported this endeavor for years. Did he let Idahoans know? It is only going to get worse with the WGA decarbonization agenda. Since the BLM obviously doesn't have the skill set to place solar panels, just only providing the land, which corporation will they choose to cozy up to, and financially benefit from, to get the job done? Perhaps one it is already friends with? As a signatory to the International Solar Alliance (ISA) "to accelerate global adoption of solar energy", the United States receives support from the ISA "by helping to expedite solar deployment." Sounds like a military exercise. Yes, the U.S. is eager to be part of "Green Grids Initiative (GGI) One Sun One World One Grid’ operating in the U.S., thanks to its National Grid Partners. And it will benefit Brandon's friends as well. Returning to the BLM, just understand this expansion of solar panels on public land is being driven by the dark side of the government that everyone now lives under, corporatism. and also achieves the goal of reducing the amount of land that Idahoans will have access to for beneficial use. Idahoans should feel lucky the BLM has chosen to once again use the lawful process to placate the masses.
0 Comments
While the Natural Asset Companies have been successfully put on hold, at least for now, there has been another Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scheme in the works. Originating out of the United Nations, ESG began with the idea that investors should determine how businesses operate on an environmental, social, and governance framework, or its sustainability practices. Now, the new scheme is expecting those corporations to stem nature and biodiversity loss. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has a short video of examples.
Launched in 2022, the posh name for this, Nature Action 100, was conceived by the Launching Investor Group, a conglomerate of different investment and asset management groups worth $24 trillion, and even the Church Commissioners for England. Other partners include Ceres, the investors group on climate change IIGCC, Planet Tracker, and Finance for Biodiversity Foundation. Through a letter, Nature Action 100 engaged with 100 companies whom it deems as major drivers of nature loss, exploiters of resources, and contributors to soil, water, and solid waste pollution, requesting them to "align their business model with the targets and goals of the "Global Biodiversity Framework" and restore nature and ecosystems. Some of those company sectors include pharmaceuticals; agricultural chemicals; household and personal goods; food, ranging from meat and dairy producers to processed foods; forestry and packaging, including forest management and pulp and paper products; and metals and mining. Companies that have been tagged for ravaging the earth include some familiar names like Cost-co, Home Depot, Kellogg, Kimberly Clark, Lowes, McDonalds, Nestlé, Pepsi, Sherwin-Williams, Target, Tyson, Walmart, and Weyerhaeuser, all of which will be analyzed for compliance. The message is clear, if you don't do this, we won't invest in you. The goal for these companies is integrating natural capital considerations into their ESG programs. A variation of natural asset companies, natural capital is "a conceptual approach that looks at nature through the prism of economics" requiring "Better stewardship". Thus, companies must pledge to place nature above all production. Initial expectations are that these companies will outline a plan that includes six actions: Ambition, Assessment, Targets, Implementation, Governance, and Engagement. So, for now, it is just developing a plan to meet investor demands. Similar benchmarks were created for Climate Action 100+ in which there are already 170 companies participating. Instead of corporations steering the agenda on the climate, as with wind and solar power, this agenda focuses on corporations preventing the reduction of nature's assets and biodiversity through its production of goods. In this WEF video, this concept is discussed. At the 4" mark Elizabeth Mrema sensationally declares that earth has lost millions of species, 83% of land is lost, and 85% of wetlands have been destroyed, thus driving the need for this transition. Oh, the humanity! It is a mystery how anyone is surviving. The panel also references "nature based solutions" which are "are actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems" which is what these investors are commanding from the companies. It ends with a discussion on how to "sell" this to the world and sucking the younger generation into being social activists to sell it, starting with the education system. Isn't the threat of monetary loss unless these companies comply, as Kjerstin Braathen states at the 22:40 mark in the video, a form of blackmail? Or extortion with investors making a threat with the intention to cause harm through economic loss? It all just sounds dirty and corrupt. Ms. Braathen also acknowledges, as she smiles, that this transition will cause some "pain" with resulting shortages in energy and "inflationary pressures" at the 22:41" mark. Geez lady, thanks a lot. It will also be just a matter of time before these corporations will put expectations on suppliers for the same practices. Walmart is already on board. Taking these actions won't cost companies anything, the cost of this insanity is, and will be, borne by the consumer. This is just another example of how the corporate world has taken hold of how lives are being transitioned. Bring on the seaweed. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10: Powers Prohibited of States
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation...." Treaty - "ratified agreement between two or more nations or sovereigns; a contract between two or more countries that is adhered to by the nations party to it; an international agreement between two or more states that is governed by international law." Alliance - "a group of countries, political parties, or people who have agreed to work together because of shared interests or aims". Confederation - "Union of sovereign states linked by treaties, whose common government does not directly exercise its sovereignty over their territory"; "a group of people, countries, organizations, etc., that are joined together in some activity or effort". Treason - "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance..."; "the crime of doing something that harms your country or government..." Are Idaho state legislators and the governor himself engaging in acts that violate the U.S. Constitution even though the Idaho Oath of Office requires a vow to "support the Constitution of the United States"? It appears there is a very strong question as to certain elected officials being in violation of this oath by their activities. Let's hypothesize that is the case. Making this alliance possible through a statute, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) is a "public-private nonprofit" that is comprised of several northwest states, including Idaho, and several Canadian Provinces. President Pro Tempore Sen. Winder serves on the Executive Committee; Gov. Brad Little, Senators Burtenshaw, Taylor, and Representatives Raybould, Green, and Shepherd serve on the Delegate Council, with Representatives Gannon and Wisniewski and Senators Lent and Semmelroth serving as Council alternates. There is also a Private Sector Council made up of corporations, some of which are global. PNWER has numerous working groups, and as a confederation, it works on issues that remove state sovereignty as "The gold standard of U.S.-Canada Relations". To further his alliances, Gov. Little is a member of the Western Governors Association (WGA) and its corporate sponsors. This is a group that promotes "collective action" policies, brought Agenda 2030 to Idaho, and extends its alliance through socialization with foreign countries, perhaps moving it from an alliance into a confederation. There is also the National Governors Association (NGA) in which Governor Little is a member. and its long list of global corporate partners. Its program areas are similar to Idaho issues. This group declares it improves "citizens' lives" on "matters of public policy and governance at the state, national and global levels." Working at a global level just shoved it to a confederation. Funding information for the NGA is elusive. Back in 2010 Idaho scarfed up $60,000 for dues, but saved $10,000 for skipping events. However, corporate partners can pay for "exclusive access to governors during meetings and conferences" plus other benefits (pg 15) that Idaho citizens are not allowed. Through its partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals ideology and agendas are offered through the NGA Center for Best Practices (a money making machine, funded by federal grants and private and corporate donations). Is this in itself not an act of treason? On a really frightening note, back in 2019 the NGA sponsored the U.S. China-Governors Collaboration Summit, an initiative created by Hillary, inviting China into local governments. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of State recognized this threat and it was put to a halt in 2020. However, this didn't stop Governor Otter from expanding "these healthy international relationships", or Governor Little from engaging with foreign countries. Even though Governor Little labeled this as an "agreement", does it qualify as a treaty without legislative approval? How can either be so obtuse? As no surprise, a 2019 Minzhi-Tsinghua study found Governor Little has a "friendly" attitude towards China (pg 31). Contained within the NGA is the Council of Governors (COG), created by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2008, and through Executive Order 13528 in 2010, "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards." Basically, COG destroys state sovereignty of being separate from the federal government, and yours truly, Governor Little, is a council member, appointed in September, 2023. Could this fall under an alliance or confederation? Or is this violation acceptable since it was created by the federal government? Democratic and federal influence seems to be the forefront of this collective alliance through a confederation (pg 4) and promoted with the Democratic president being host of the NGA 2023 winter meeting (20" mark), at which Governor Little was in attendance. In case a governor forgets, the NGA also has a refresher course on a governors' powers and authority. In spite of its kindergarten level Disagree Better initiative, looks like it may have dissidents in the ranks. Putting forward a good front that he is all in for his party, Governor Little also belongs to the Republican Governors Association (RGA), which lays claim that Republican leadership is a "contrast of what’s happening under Democrats’ leadership in DC". What a bunch of malarkey. Governor Little, along with the rest of RGA governors, maintains an alliance with the "bipartisan" NGA. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an organization that brings state legislators together as an alliance voluntarily. The State Chair for Idaho is Rep. Sage Dixon who also serves on the Board of Directors, and on the Federalism and International Relations task force. ALEC has other task force groups and has worked on many issues, truly fitting the description of a confederation. Often through this group, bills are introduced to the legislature, heavily influenced by corporations. Although there is no reference to corporate involvement on its current website, archived websites indicate "ALEC provides a forum for the private sector to provide practical input on how state public policy decisions can impact jobs and the local economy". Its 2018 Strategic Plan did mention some private partners, and a goal to "increase the number of meetings with major donors and prospects (individuals, foundations and corporations)" (pg 18). These are the "policies", or acts, recommended for 2023. So this group writes up an act, or bill, seeking to have it passed by legislators. It may be a stretch to quantify this as a treaty, but it does have that smell. A written document from different political authorities between states for the purposes of ratification by states. Hmm.... There is also the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). Legislative leaders that belong to NCSL include Representatives Moyle, Blanksma, and Rubel, and Senators Winder, Anthon, and Wintrow. Its mission "is to advance the effectiveness, independence and integrity of legislatures and to foster interstate cooperation". Although not linked by a treaty, it seems the NCSL acts like a confederation that does not promote the exercise of sovereignty over one's own territory, instead having control over its committees by an Executive Committee. The NCSL encourages the use of contracts between states, or treaties which are forbidden by the Constitution. To influence decisions the NCSL has its own (allegedly non-partisan) list of policy influencers on different issues and policy direction. Who needs input from Idaho constituents when you have experts to fill the bill? The Council of State Governments (CSG) is another alliance which includes 13 western states via CSG West. CSG "provides state legislators and legislative staff with valuable relationship building and professional growth opportunities through a variety of member-driven, regionally focused programs and services", and "membership is automatic". On the Executive Committee are the same NCSL folks, Senators Winder, Wintrow, and Anthon, along with Representatives Moyle and Rubel, right there along with Canada, a foreign country. Does confederation come to mind? How convenient that Idaho legislative leaders belong to these groups. Now, involvement in this CSG West confederation isn't limited to those just mentioned. It also includes Senators Lent and Ward-Engelking on the Education Committee; Senators Hartgen, Guthrie, and Semmelroth on the Agriculture & Water Committee; Senator Burtenshaw on the Canada Relations Committee; Senators Lent, Just, Semmelroth, and Rabe on the Energy & Environment Committee; Senators Harris, Taylor, and VanOrden on the Health Committee; Senators Rabe and Wintrow as Co-Chairs on the Housing Committee; Senators Schroeder and Taylor on the River Governance Committee; Senators Bjerke and Wintrow on the Public Safety Committee; Senators Lakey and Ruchti in the Legislative Oversight Working Group; and lastly, Rep. Furniss on the Westrends Board. Lt. Governor Scott Bedke has his own little clique to be part of, the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) and its pack of corporate partners. It also has international missions with multiple countries and a host of resolutions to push upon return to the legislature. Not to be left out, both Bedke and President Pro Tempore Winder belong on the State Legislative Leaders Foundation (SLLF) Board of Directors. It is nauseating that this group thinks it has "respect for the institution of the state legislature, and a moral commitment to protecting the integrity of that institution", especially when the Advisory Council is nothing but global corporations and other affiliations. Gentlemen, enjoy your trip to Myrtle Beach, SC to cavort with your buddies this spring, the legislative session will be over just in time. Good grief, where does Governor Little and these legislators find time to govern Idaho? Seems like they are pretty busy flitting across the country to pal around with others and make plans for Idaho. It comes as no surprise that Idahoans are not listened to, and fed up. Other organizations are doing the work of legislators and those legislators adopt whatever bilge is handed to them. Why spend the time listening to Idahoans, it is easier to use what is made available to them. How about Idahoans make it simple for these folks. A select group of Idahoans, with expert knowledge on these same issues, can come together, provide "legislative oversight", and offer "suggestions to improve government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness" that the legislature so desperately seems to need, and provide far better solutions. Aren't the people supposed to have the power? Heck, maybe all of this is a stretch, surely legal minds would rip this hypothesis to shreds. There are limitations to the definition of treason, "ensure that the conduct itself demonstrated a defendant’s intention to betray the United States"; "defendant’s disloyal intent must be evident from the witnessed acts themselves"; "if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” "In other words, the Constitution requires both concrete action and an intent to betray the nation before a citizen can be convicted of treason." Clearly, one can assume that these elected officials have no intent to betray the United States, they most likely really believe they are doing good for Idaho and the country. Regardless, the concept of these regional groups, and those who are involved in them, is repugnant, betray our country and state for not following the Constitution, and betray the consent of the people. The harm to Idaho extends far beyond just their involvement with the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry (IACI) Anyone who has read this far must be outraged. Isn't it apparent there is no government system anymore? It isn't about political parties, it is about the destruction of our Republic in which both parties participate. These bodies of alliances and confederations are destroying Idaho, and our country. Though not technically treason, it does demonstrate no loyalty to our country, and it does advance the corporate takeover of our government. Meanwhile, as other countries honor those who sacrificed their lives to resist tyranny annually, we sit on our keisters, not organizing our own resistance against these quislings. Apparently Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder tighty-whities are in a wad.
Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld wrote a post that clearly, and accurately, revealed the truth about the sad state of affairs in our government by exposing the relationships of some government officials to the corporate world. There isn't one iota of misrepresentation in what she wrote. In response, Mr. Winder has chosen to remove her as vice chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, claiming she was attacking people, defaming them, and was degrading and disrespectful to them. How does stating the truth defame anyone? Even a court of law would uphold her statements as being nothing more than factual. He even included in his comments the possibility of future threats towards her. It is no secret the deep ties that the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry (IACI) has with elected officials and the legislative decisions being influenced based on those relationships. Mr. Winder was probably lucky that Sen. Zuiderveld didn't go farther in exposing how all of this is tied to the more global agendas, his tighty-whities might no longer have remained white. Instead, his idea of being a responsible and ethical elected official is to punish those who address the truth and point fingers at other groups, just a mere tactic of distraction. He has previously called these groups a "threat" to democracy, clearly not understanding we are a Republic. Mr. Winder needs to quit projecting his own fears onto others, and abusing his role over them. By removing Sen. Zuiderveld as vice chair, Mr. Winder has basically committed the same sin he has laid upon his accused by degrading, defaming, and being disrespectful to a member of the Senate body. Maybe the truth is that Sen. Zuiderveld was getting a little too close to home by not exposing his own involvements with outside groups that are supported by huge global corporations, making decisions, along with all his other legislative minions, that are not representative of constituents but with other countries and states. Or maybe he is too threatened in knowing he may get exposed for his activities that enmesh the government with corporations, advancing crony capitalism. Who pays for these trips? Mr. Winder's corporate buddies? Or the taxpayer? Yes, Mr. Winder should be scared and his retaliatory actions are indicative of just that. He fails to see his responsibility as an elected official to represent the people, and is more than guilty of the same offenses that were brought to light by Sen. Zuiderveld. Maybe it would be helpful for him to have a come to Jesus moment where all of his transgressions are confessed, maybe that would turn the legislature around to a body that represents the people, not the corporate world. One confession should be that he, himself, is an IACT pet as an endorsed candidate. and that his voting record shows his loyalty to IACI (pg 22). IACI tracking elected officials is not any different from any other group that he points fingers at. Mr. Winder has clearly made himself look like a fool. His actions are retaliatory and he doesn't understand that he is acting like nothing more than a schoolyard bully standing up for his friends. By doing so he has validated the very issue brought up by Sen. Zuiderveld. Winder should exit his position and be voted out of office by his constituents as he is nothing more than a hypocritical leader. Apeel is a corporation whose product applies "plant-based" protections on fruits and vegetables "to slow the rate of oxidation and moisture loss." In doing so, this food maintains a longer shelf life and ultimately reduces "food waste".
Founded in 2012, and partially funded by Bill Gates and others. Apeel "has prevented 42 million pieces of fruit from going to waste at retail locations...with "up to 50% reduction in avocado food waste", while conserving "nearly 4.7 billion liters of water". Unknowingly, everyone has already been exposed to this "natural" extra peel on fruit. Granted, most people don't eat the shells of avocados, oranges, or bananas, but what about that apple, cucumber, or orange and lemon zest? It's likely most people don't realize this stuff has already been applied to their produce. "Apeel is composed entirely of purified monoglycerides and diglycerides", substances that can be found in other foods, and declared safe to eat by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and World Health Organization (WHO). Now doesn't that make one feel better? While Apeel's site goes to great lengths to not answer what the ingredients are, it does state it is "composed entirely of a mixture of food grade glycerolipids derived from edible plant oils, specifically the food additive mono-and diglycerides of fatty acids". It is also "Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) in the United States". Gotta love that "generally" remark. Extra safety assurance is given that Apeel aligns "with the requirements of UN Global Compact and OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains." There are two different products for application. Invisipeel is applied to crops in the field and is a "molecular mix that throws off pests like bacteria, fungi, and insects" that can't be washed off. Edipeel is applied to the produce after harvest where produce is sprayed or dipped into the Apeel solution. This solution solidifies and forms a barrier around the produce. Organipeel, listed under an Apeel trademark application, appears to be an umbrella name for Invisipeel and Edipeel. It is an antimicrobial agent being "approved for 2 sites including vegetable wash water and fruit wash water", and "for 3 pests and pest groups including but not limited to decay, storage microorganisms, and deterioration/spoilage bacteria" by Pomerix Pest Solutions. It is registered as a pestiside with clear hazards to humans and animals. The active ingredient is citric acid but its inert ingredients are not identified. On page 21 of this document, Apeel states Organipeel can be used on organic products as a pesticide, or fungicide, "for post-harvest handling of raw agricultural commodities." Multiple patents, with many approved, have been sought, and has interesting information on some. Besides citric acid, other ingredients can include esters, amides, amines, thiols, carboxylic acids, ethers, and aliphatic waxes, none of which appear to be harmful. However, residues of ethyl acetate, heptane, palladium, arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury have been found from the production process. Apeel derives monoacylglycerides from grape seeds, claiming them "to be as safe and as acceptable as other mono- and diglycerides." Of minor concern is the mono-diglycerides component. One study found that this compound does improve lutein absorption. However, monoglycerides contain small amounts of trans fats which can contribute to heart disease, but in general are found to be safe for consumption. Much concern and questions have been raised about this invisible protective coat being used on produce, but the FDA finds nothing to be concerned about. It has even been applied to organic food which caused some alarm. Looking at all of the independent studies however, it does not appear that there should be cause for concern. Again, what the real concern should be is how food is being manipulated. James Rogers, founder and CEO of Apeel, is a World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leader. His Apeel corporation is a WEF partner and endorsed by the World Food Programme. The real concern is the corporate world screwing around with food without most people's knowledge, or that food being manipulated in other ways, such as the recent approval of lab grown chicken, gene edited pork, or genetically engineered salmon. The obsession to play God by these technocrats is beyond belief. That should be the most primary concern, what is being done to change our food in so many ways. Stores where Apeel products are sold can be found here. Some major stores selling this product are Walmart, Krogers (Fred Meyer), and Cost-co. If not sure, look for this logo on the product. More information about Apeel can be found in this video starting at the 5:30 mark. Tremendous dichotomies exist with land management. Money pours in for forest fire prevention while at the same time forests are allowed to become burdened with fuel loads that only act as incinerators. "We let forests burn" is an insane ideology. Fires destroy the habitat environmentalists crusade to protect. The introduction of wolves has resulted in the loss of wildlife, one issue environmentalists champion for protection. Renewable energy is one of the most damaging to the environment under the guise of protecting it. One doozy of a dichotomy exists with Elk and Deer. Are potential causes of disease in these majestic animals being ignored or dismissed for a reason?
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a fatal disease affecting Elk, Deer, Moose, and other wildlife, where the animal experiences neurological deterioration. It first appeared at Slate Creek in Idaho County, November 2021. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) claims CWD is a Prion disease, a malformed protein that enters the brain, with no understanding of "how it is spread". But the actions they are taking to minimize the spread, which speak louder than their words, suggest they believe it is spread by direct contact. The animal eventually wastes away from a poor immune response, starvation, and weakness. IDFG focuses on minimizing its spread and developed a strategy in 2021 that includes surveillance and monitoring with the help of hunters, along with "cutting deer density to reduce CWD risk". . Elk Hoof Disease (EHD) was also discovered in Idaho County in 2018. This disease is blamed on a Treponema spirochete bacterium that is suspected to cause hoof abnormalities and lameness in elk, leading to poor health and death. It was recently discovered that it is spread by "exposure to soil contaminated with hooves from affected elk". Drawing this conclusion, however, is problematic as this study gave limited consideration to other soil or environmental factors, failed to use pesticide contaminated soil, artificially created a condition with an overabundance of a pathogen, and wrapped the Elk's hooves in inoculation, creating an environment that would not be found on Elk in the wild. This map shows where EHD has been discovered in the Pacific Northwest. While Prion and Treponema have nothing to do with each other, what IDFG is failing to consider is soil health and how that may be contributing to the spread of both diseases. Why would they ignore that possibility? Idaho has a Noxious Weed program for invasive species in which IDFG participates because of its invasion into Elk forage. Biological treatment is emphasized for elimination of these weeds however, "chemical treatment is the most common option where feasible". IDFG, however, is rather secretive about what chemicals they use. The US Forest Service also has a Pesticide Management program that does not identify what chemicals are used. Commonly used pesticide agents include Glyphosate, Atrazine, 2,4-D, and Milestone. It is well known that these chemicals destroy everything in their path and have toxic effects to humans. One hypothesis is that these chemicals also cause EHD. Atrazine is particularly devastating to the immune system. Other contributing pesticides to EHD and CWD are Sulfonylurea and Diuron as both can inhibit microbial activity in the soil. Overall, these chemicals not only destroy Elk forage, they also have a damaging effect on soil health. While many variables determine how long pesticides remain in the soil, they can persist up to a decade. Manganese is "an essential human dietary element" found in soil and plants. Manganese deficiency can lead to gut and immune dysfunction, and has a relationship to Prion disease. Studies have shown that Glyphosate depletes Manganese in plants. Selenium, another trace element in soil necessary for plant development, is also dependent on soil microorganisms and cannot be easily applied to soil. Its depletion in soil has also been associated with deteriorating animal health by disrupting a healthy immune system, again suggestive of CWD, and in hoof deformities. Chemical spraying, and its adverse impact on soil, does appear to be a common source for both diseases, yet it has not been adequately researched. At hand is the lack of consideration that pesticides not only kill noxious weeds, but also destroy living organisms in the soil that maintains its health. In fact, the same corporations that produce pesticides are touting their investments in soil health, while claiming that poor soil health is from climate change. But the truth is they destroy the soil in order to put forward profit making solutions. To the rescue is lucrative corporate markets that create products to fix the problems they create. Corporations have even hijacked associations to advance their cause. Syngenta products include herbicides, and through its Biologicals, and its partner Valagro, sells products to fix the damage they cause as part of its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Brexil Combi, made by Valagro, contains a Manganese replacement. Monsanto, producer of Glysophate products, was bought by Bayer in 2016. As was Monsanto, both Syngenta and Bayer are World Economic Forum (WEF) partners. Along with its government pals, Bayer has declared Glyphosate as safe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Bayer also blames climate change and loss of biodiversity as a problem while having several products that actually destroy biodiversity, and is being fined for its false safety claims. Corteva, a descendant of DuPont, produces Milestone. Called Aminopyralid, it is a pesticide that tends to remain in the soil and carry over and damage new growth. Could ruined soil be the planned precursor to invest in "microbial-based solutions", or completely revamp soil composition, all the while messing around with RNA genetics and engineering soil microorganisms? Like everything else going on right now, corporations have their own misinformation (let's call it what it is, lying) campaign that using less pesticides would contribute to the global climate crisis. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is putting up a front to address the pesticide problem, it is a partner with the same cabal that corporations are tied to. In the EPA's interest to protect corporations, the whole federal government is similarly involved, including the US Forest Service, but were finally forced to admit ecological damage from these products. Don't touch their products that destroy the land as that would in turn destroy their self-created markets that will fix it! And these corporations are not afraid to give dictates to the government. The corruption is so widespread a book has even been written about it. Thus the dichotomy. Corporations use destructive means to destroy the environment while claiming it adds to food production, and lay blame on climate change in order to enrich their own profits. Through the use of chemicals the soil is destroyed, wildlife movement through the chemically contaminated soil can spread it to other areas while being exposed to an overgrowth of invasive bacterium that cause disease and possibly eating the sprayed forage along the way, soil is being depleted of necessary nutrients for life, and the land then becomes a haven for disease. Wildlife loss is of no concern to them and warnings about the dangers of these products would logically be the same for wildlife. Could it be Elk are actually spreading the cause of the problem rather than the disease itself? Pesticides destroy soil microbiology. Why has this not been a focus as it has been in other prion studies? In Idaho County where CWD and EHD were found, there is a noxious weed problem with Yellow Starthistle. While biocontrol methods have been tried they aren't successful in controlling the problem and in addition to other areas in the state. chemical spraying is used, Glyphosate and Aminopyralid being the most effective. Oddly, cattle, sheep, and goat grazing are not used to address this weed problem. Cheatgrass is another noxious weed where Yellow Starthistle is found, and is controlled with spraying. Again, cattle grazing is not used to contain this weed. Corporations that produce these pesticides wield quite a bit of influence over the government. If IDFG were to challenge the use of pesticides as the causal factor in CWD and EHD, what wrath would they experience from these corporations? Would the idea of investigating this correlation be enough to bring threats of retaliation by the corporate world? Or are they under the same oppression as others have been when corporations are challenged? In order to save and protect Elk that are suffering from these diseases, IDFG must embark upon more studies into the correlation between spraying devastating chemicals and how it affects these animals. Pressure must be brought to bear on all agencies that use these practices until such time they study the cause and effect between pesticides and the health of wildlife. Contact your local IDFG Regional Office here and ask where comments can be made, or provide comments to any one of the IDFG Commissioners here. While this does not solve the problem pesticides cause in wildlife disease, it does give an indication that the corporate methodology is the same. Destroy something and blame it on climate change, then create the costly solution to fix it, while suppressing the ability to expose the truth. It cannot be denied the negative impact these chemicals have on both the land and in wildlife. Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are being implemented across the world, with Idaho being no exception in this scheme. and making its own contributions to SDG #2: Zero Hunger.
Idaho participates in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, that provides the ability of low-income families to buy food through an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card. This card only allows the purchase of "healthy" food that includes snacks, candy, cookies, etc. Like any other assistance program, certain eligibility criteria must be met. Along with some other criteria, to qualify the family must fall at or below the 130% poverty line, which in 2021 would give a family of four in Idaho approximately $648.00 a month in food benefits. In January 2023, 123,133 Idahoans, or 6.55%, participated in SNAP. "Undocumented" immigrants are not eligible for food stamps, and "documented immigrants can only receive food stamps benefits if they have resided within the United States for at least five years". However, "there are some exceptions for refugees, children, and individuals receiving asylum in the United States" which probably covers many who are pouring through the southern border right now. On top of this are other Idaho food programs such as Women, Infants, & Children (WIC), and the school lunch programs, both driven by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There is also the USDA Emergency Food Assistance Program (EFAP) administered in eastern Idaho. The USDA is committed to Sustainable Development, another term used for Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. The USDA spent $182.5 billion on food assistance in 2021, and the cost continues to escalate. Even though the USDA is a federal government program, it is "strategically placed in over 80 countries", spending over $1.6 billion through its "global hunger and food security initiative, Feed the Future", along with multiple other federal agencies. The "USDA supports global food security", that is, feeding everyone. That's right, the money Idahoans earn is going to feed not only Idahoans, but other countries as well that supports the UN World Food Programme. With the current skyrocketing food prices, SNAP benefits might not be enough to cover a full month's supply of food for a family of four, but there are other sources to obtain food. The Idaho Foodbank is one that provides a broad array of help to Idahoans, and are assisted by multiple corporations, some of which are World Economic Forum (WEF) partners such as Chobani, Bank of America, Walmart, Micron. and of course the United Way. It even has a map that can be used to locate food resources. Yet, in spite of these programs, there is the claim that hunger persists, not only in Idaho, but across the world. At the same time, in 2020, 66.3% of Idaho adults were considered overweight or obese, the obese rate of 31.1% coinciding with the 2022 CDC rate. Apparently, obesity is another crisis, is increasing, and interfering with the SDG. Who comprises the obese, those on food assistance programs, or those who can afford to buy their own food? Hunger persists yet there is a serious obesity problem? Perhaps it is because there is money to be made on obesity. Even with this obesity rate, the White House is committing $8 billion more to combat hunger, place more Americans on SNAP and other welfare programs, and advance corporatism. However, while the SDG Targets #2.1 and 2.2 are paid for by Idaho taxpayers, the remaining SDG #2 targets are also in progress. In short, to feed ten billions of people by 2050, the whole food system has to be transformed, including how we eat, how food systems operate, and what we eat. The WEF even believes "Fixing broken food systems will meet all SDGs." But there is a more nefarious agenda behind this system transformation: getting more people onto SNAP; integrating food with healthcare; and changing food standards, categories, and nutrition. Having more people on SNAP will make it easier to force the use of only certain food such as lab grown meat, fish, and coated fruit. Demonic agendas always start with the most vulnerable. In Idaho, the Idaho Hunger Relief Task Force program, with its multiple partners, including Idaho government agencies, achieves several of these transformations. One is to "increase SNAP participation", with the USDA paying states for some administrative costs to increase those numbers. It is following the lead of the White House. Another of its programs, the Food is Medicine scam, meets the goal of integrating food with healthcare, and is based on the idea of tying together what one eats with their healthcare. Food, kitchen supplies, dietary instruction, and education are written as a prescription for healthcare reasons and paid for by Medicaid. Both the USDA and White House have dumped money, that is your tax dollar, into this concept for experimentation and it is being tested in other states. The Task Force 2022 Year End Report has some interesting information with clear intentions to expand. What better way is there than a program like this to set the stage for tracking behavior, what someone eats, and how they comply. Maybe at some point if it is shown they are not complying their full access to healthcare benefits will be turned off, or maybe their access to food. Isn't that the point of having a digital identity, so everything we do can be tracked? Naturally, if tracking is involved, WEF thinks the idea is good and its corporate partners are already participating. More information on this Food is Medicine scam can be found here. There has been an increased emphasis for growing one's own food that is organic, avoiding processed food that contain potential poisons, and joining as a community to grow food. In light of world hunger and food shortages, the WEF also recommends Community gardens as part of 4thIR. The community garden concept is being spread throughout Idaho. Anything WEF promotes deserves intense scrutiny. Knowing its plan for dietary changes and how food is produced, why is it promoting growing one's own food? Not that community gardens are not a good idea, but what is the WEF's motivation? Or is this a solution to the "planned starvation" as Alex Newman suggests starting at the 4" mark. Knowing the dangers of how food is grown now by WEF partners, why is it steering people towards growing their own food? Its Food Systems Initiative will ensure that all food will affected in some way. Perhaps this whole issue is just another corporate game plan that follows the same steps. Create a problem (food "insecurity") that leads to more government dependency, produce food items that contribute to health problems (obesity), which boosts more health sector involvement for tracking, and from all of that, support an unhealthy food market that perpetuates the profit-making cycle. Round and round we go. Any mother understands that food is a powerful weapon and can be used to influence a child's behavior. Don't eat dinner, no dessert. Misbehave, go to bed without dinner. Behave well, get a treat. Food is one powerful weapon that can, and has been weaponized for control. The stage has been set for a very bumpy road ahead regarding food. In the meantime, Idaho is keeping its hungry fed, along with the rest of the world to meet SDG #2. It is time for everyone to stand up against the corporate world and take steps to hit back at the underlying goal of transforming our economy, and in doing so, it can be crippled, or at least dented. Putting a permanent kink their chain may not happen, but it will hurt. As seen with both Target and Bud Light, the blows have been heavy. Hopefully, Kohl's will be next in line to lose billions. And after all, corporations play the same game.
Through the World Economic Forum (WEF), corporations adopt Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The "woke" culture is actually SDG and it is those corporations forcing that culture upon us. Corporations have ten options to become a WEF partner, reportedly costing between $62,000–$620,000 a year to join. With its own terms and conditions, the WEF has to be contacted in order to join. Attending the annual party at Davos each year costs $29,000. It takes big money to be part of the elite, but the payoffs through corporatism and monopolies are huge. Strategic Partners and Strategic Foundation Partners are named. Strategic Technology Partners aren't named, but there are over 100 and include the likes of Dell, Cisco, Hitachi, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, and even Micron. Associate Partners aren't really defined, but Platform Partners refer to various members joining specific platforms for a cause such as the Global Plastic Action Partnership. Its New Champions plan, costing approximately $25,725.60/year, is for "forward-looking companies that are championing new business models, emerging technologies and sustainable growth strategies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution." If one wants to sell their soul they can join as a Unicorn, or as an "invitation-only" Global Innovator. Exclusive membership really flies in the face of inclusion the WEF regurgitates upon us to practice, but it is the heartbeat of enmeshing the corporate world with the government. These same corporations launder money through their foundations, charging consumers for their charity work with higher prices, then taking the tax deduction for it. What is the point of this? These corporations aren't paying for all of these expenses, consumers are. It is time to hit back at them and not fork over money, or at least as little as possible, for their follies. Even though a retailer or corporation is not listed on the WEF partner site, if they practice Environment, Social Governance (ESG), they have been sucked in because access to funding may be limited or denied if ESG is not practiced. For businesses to survive and have access to credit, they are forced into sinister ESG practices. All WEF partner corporations practice ESG, the number of partners are too long to list here. A few familiar ones include Amazon, Bayer, Coca-Cola, L'Oreal, Marriott, Apple, Blackrock, CVS, Google, LinkedIn, Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, UPS, Walmart, PayPal, Tyson, Verizon, and AT&T. Unfortunately for Boise, SUEZ, now called Veolia, is a WEF partner and practices ESG. In return, because practicing ESG is costly, customers can anticipate rate hikes. Forget about donating to associations such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Diabetes Association as they too have chosen to be part of this globalist plan. The WEF has some interesting concepts regarding clothing. Ralph Lauren, Levi Strauss & Co, Adidas, Nike, and Gucci tend to be perceived as a higher end of clothing. But the WEF holds the belief that the better market is really in second-hand clothing. In this video, it is outlined that recycling clothes helps with climate change but the truth is, it is a fabricated market for increasing profits to the same global corporations that make the clothing, and that includes tracking clothes. Tommy Hilfiger, Benetton, and Lado Avesso have already started this tracking. The same goes with furniture, it will be recycled just for WEF serfs. One could speculate that the plan involves elites buying the first round of clothing, then selling those hand-me-downs to us serfs for the purposes of extending corporate profits. Changing and controlling consumption patterns is one goal of the WEF. We can put their panties in a wad by taking control and not consuming anything they produce, or participating in anything they promote, which has been successfully demonstrated by Target and Bud Light. It is easy to find out if a business practices ESG, and if it looks like ESG is being practiced, let them know of your opposition. Because of the bullying by lending markets, it may not be a choice for the business. Aside from boycotting these corporations as much as possible there are other actions that can be taken. Leave global banks such as Mastercard, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, and instead join a local bank or credit union. Buy your medications from a local, independently run pharmacy. In fact, support all locally run businesses and stay away from big box stores like Walmart, Yum restaurants, and Kroger run stores (Fred Meyer). Don't buy that hamburger from McDonalds, go to the locally owned burger joint. If possible, raise your own chickens for eggs and meat instead of buying from Tyson. Buy all your meat, produce, eggs, and dairy from local farmers, at least you can ask what the animals have been given. Switch from Kellogg's and General Mills products, Campbells, and Mars products to off brand. Make food from scratch and check brands for ingredients. Take your own coffee to work. Maybe consider canning your own food instead of buying it, or making your own clothes. This is also good opportunity to teach children new skills. Use only cash, reject businesses that won't accept cash or checks. Don't pay bills online. And for goodness sake, get those apps and QR codes off your phone. Go to a local computer shop and see if they can build a computer rather than buying an HP, Apple, or Dell. It may not totally get away from buying products associated with the WEF, but it will screw with their plan. Funding these corporations only contributes to their quest for control and wealth. As can be seen, the control is already in place. It is nearly impossible to find products not associated in some way to these globalist corporations. Let's stop feeding them. Give them something to think about at the next board meeting by sending an email to each corporation and inform them of your opposition, and disgust. Macy's and Costco think the downturn in spending is a result of the economy. Imagine their bewilderment if we really socked it to them. Now comes the dilemma. How do you get enough people to participate in all of this in order to make a difference? With all of those who do participate, how many more are left that continue to patronize these businesses, so much so that the effect is barely noticeable. Bottom line is it has to start somewhere and it might as well be now. Corporations could never get this type of stranglehold on our self-sufficient ancestors. Encourage others to consider boycotting and share any other ideas you may have. Sometimes the agendas come so rapidly it is difficult to keep them apart because at the core they all serve the same purpose.
Since the federal government no longer operates as three separate branches with the legislative branch assigned to creating laws, the Executive Branch and unconstitutional administrative rulemaking process now create laws that Americans are subjected to without any congressional involvement. Quite notorious are rules that are written under the Department of Interior (DOI). Given that the federal government now operates in bed with corporations and non-government organizations (NGO), many of the rules are created for the benefit of those groups and not us. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and its buddy corporations and environmental groups have been busy creating a new "rule" that will economically benefit the BLM, serve the ideology of environmental groups, and help the corporate world advance renewable energy projects. Not only are the Executive Branch and DOI handing over "public" land to corporations for renewable energy projects, but with BLM's full participation, this proposed rule also advances the White House 30x30 agenda, a goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030. It is the rewriting of a regulatory framework that will put public land under the 30x30 classification for land conservation. 30x30 isn't even a federal law passed by Congress, it is a dictate from the White House that meets an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) goal, a United Nations participant. That alone should negate any participation in 30x30, or through illegal rulings by the BLM. However, the DOI is an IUCN member through several of its agencies, so the same ideology is probably applied to the BLM. The DOI announced its "Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands" in March, putting "conservation on equal footing with other uses". Other highlights include identifying "areas in need of restoration or conservation", and building "on...clean energy deployment". Its three-pronged justification is to "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data” while incorporating "land health assessments" in BLM decisions on land use. This proposed rule was released in the Federal Register on April 3, and folks are urging a rapid deployment before a possible flip in Congress in 2024. Now, if this were such a wonderful idea, why are they scared? Just a quick summary of this rule provides the fluff. "Manage the land for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems"; "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat"; "apply land health standards" (now there's a scary thought); "clarify that conservation is a “use” within the FLPMA’s multiple-use framework"; and "revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)." By "clarifying" conservation as a use, the BLM is changing the law without Congressional involvement. The Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended in 2021, does not address the classification of land for conservation leasing, instead emphasizing that land is used for its resources. Page 2(c) defines multiple use. Effect on existing rights, page 79(a), makes it clear that nothing can terminate the rights to use the land. Pretending that leasing land for conservation serves the purpose of multiple use is only a distorted fantasy. Through the DOI, the White House is revising the FLPMA law without any congressional involvement. Once again, the rule of law is ignored by the White House. Buried deep in this rhetoric is a plan that should raise the hair on the back of the neck, "conservation leasing". DOI's definition of this is a "time-limited lease" allowing "interested organizations conduct restoration or mitigation activities...to facilitate development projects". It will also "prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning." All of this means non-use. PERC probably describes it best, "creating markets for conservation". With this rule, the DOI is advancing public land as a commodity. The BLM will make an unknown amount of money because corporations can pay "to restore a degraded ecosystems" to "offset environmentally harmful activities". Same with NGOs. Through NatureVest, the Nature Conservancy already has the program to exploit conservation for profit. Opposite of what the DOI claims, that multi-use will continue in spite of this conservation, if a wealthy environmental group or corporation dumps their money into one of these leases, use can be denied, as either will hold the ability to "preclude the parcel from...grazing during the extendable 10-year term. The leases might also block future leasing for uses deemed incompatible with the conservation work." It might become a mad bidding war between corporations and environmental groups to see who can buy up the most "leasing". However, perhaps unbeknownst to some, it has always been illegal for environmental groups to lease public land. This proposed rule removes that problem for them and really opens the door to their bank vault, tying up land across America. No wonder they love it. Perhaps quid pro quo? Companies have also been "requesting conservation leases". No doubt, the DOI is serving its NGO and corporate constituents well. To offset the damage from a renewable energy project, corporations will use the excuse to lease land either surrounding the project or in another area to offset that damage by restoring the leased land. In some instances, it is called "carbon offsetting", which really appears to be more of a money game than making a real difference. The insane idea behind this is that leased land would be saved for more public use because it would somehow be healthier. As the BLM goes about making its "health assessments" of the land, there is fairly good potential that more land will be identified as unhealthy and needing repair, then sucked up for conservation and non-use. With powerful and wealthy corporations and their rich NGO pals, the whole BLM landscape could be sucked up in restoration and mitigation projects through leasing. "Science" will surely be used to justify the land's need for restoration. If NGOs love it, it has to be bad. Temporary restrictions on use are part of the rule for restoration of degraded land. Keeping the land available for multiple use through this proposed rule is a lie. Temporary restrictions while degraded land is restored can extend up to ten years. How long does land take to restore itself, or is that up to some bureaucratic technocrat? The rule also states it "would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” So cattle grazing would have to fit this new narrative or else, and with the hatred of cattle, no compatibility would probably ever be recognized. So in between all of the malarkey of how wonderful this is to improve the land and make it available for everyone's great-great grandkids, it is really a twisted way of taking land away from public use and making money off corporations and NGOs. For corporations, the excuse can be to offset greenhouse gas emissions they create, or "funding renewable energy projects" can be considered a carbon offset. How handy is that for renewable energy corporations? The regulation calls for an assessment of all public land, its state of degradation, and need for restoration, which includes grazing land. For now, grazing is spared from this rule until the land can be assessed, but it is still a threat to the cattle industry and is in the 30x30 crosshairs for conservation leasing. At least U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) understand this rule violates the law and will kill multiple use as land that is leased out for conservation will not be available for use under the Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSY). He, along with Senator Jim Risch, have introduced a bill to stop this proposed BLM rule. Of note, comments are being made by individuals who don't even live in states where BLM land exists, many of whom live in eastern states. They think the idea of the BLM conserving the land is great without really understanding the full impact of this proposed rule, let alone understanding it is a violation of the Congressional role to create laws. This is borne out by the significant numbers of canned support letters the NGOs tell them to use, just accepting what is spoon fed to them without taking the time to understand the issue. It seems most of these comments originate from The Wilderness Society. This is the ignorance we are up against and the herd mentality. Because the sheep are following orders, most of the comments support this rule. All comments can be browsed here. Comments on this proposed rule can be made on this link and submitted by June 20, 2023. To review the proposed rule, go to this link. Let the BLM know that this rule is illegal, that it only serves its corporate and NGO buddies, and will destroy the purpose of FLPMA for multiple-use. Grazing Coordination Plan This is long, but more importantly, the need to get the information out exceeds the length of the article. In Part 1, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lava Ridge Wind Project was reviewed for potential violations by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding grazing laws. Contained within the DEIS documents is the Draft Appendix S: Grazing Coordination Plan (GCP), which details how much impact, and disruption, would occur to the cattle industry. Questions about federal grazing laws being violated by the BLM continue with the GCP. The GCP was developed by Magic Valley Energy (MVE), a front name for LS Power. Although not identified in the GCP, it is known that Jack Alexander, founder of Synergy Resource Solutions, was involved in the creation of this document. Why the secrecy MVE? Synergy Resource Solutions has some interesting connections. Mr. Alexander is a past president of the Society for Range Management, which supports the United Nations International Year of Rangelands. As a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control, International Erosion Control Association (IECA), he has some connections to the corporate world. While Mr. Alexander has many degrees, it is unclear how much time he has spent on a range herding cattle. It appears MVE engaged this person, or business, for the purposes of creating a grazing plan that suspiciously buys opinions on what LS Power wants, or needs, to build its project. There is no investment in the cattle, the ranchers, or what is ethically right. Apparently, LS Power thinks it is no big deal to shuffle cattle around while having the ranchers do the work. Ask any rancher how difficult it is to herd cattle to a new area for food and water, it isn't that easy. In Appendix S, page S-1 of the GCP, it states "MVE is committed to working with the local grazing permittees (ranchers)", yet the plan does not appear to have been developed with those ranchers. If MVE's "objective has been and will continue to be close coordination with the grazing permittees", then why do ranchers oppose this project? In MVE's FAQ, "What happens to the grazing/ranching operations during construction and once the project is in operation?" And the provided answer, "The range improvements installed by MVE will benefit the long-term management of the grazing allotments." There doesn't appear to be any range improvements in the GCP that will benefit grazing allotments now or in the long term. In fact, as stated in the DEIS, page 3-285, "BLM grazing allotments (the land permitted to be used for grazing) would be subject to long-term reductions in allotment acreage...some areas could remain permanently unavailable". Also on page 3-278, the project involves "altering forage conditions, altering the forage availability for livestock grazing, and altering existing range improvements." This clearly describes alterations that will result in reductions and/or permanent removal, not improvements. Page S-1 also states grazing permittees identified impacts from this project as the death of cattle, activities affecting range improvements, reduced permittee AUM, and livestock health being affected. Yet, the stated GCP purpose is to outline "how the Project will coexist with the grazing operations". Coexisting is an interesting term, as its perception of coexistence is really about shuffling cattle around at the convenience of project needs, disrupting the lives of cattle ranchers, placing the burden on them to do the work, and destroying productive use of the land for years. Page S-3 - "temporary fencing" will create "isolated “sub-pastures” and "gaps for access to water" that will be solved by bringing in up to 50 water troughs for the cattle. The expectation for ranchers herding cattle to these areas will be an ongoing burden, and it is doubtful cattle will have a positive response to their water source being moved. Plus, 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7) states, "Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts." With the ongoing construction and removal of temporary fencing, creating small areas of disruption one at a time, the overall significant impact of these mitigation measures cannot be lessened. "For AUMs (the amount of forage needed for one cow over one month) that are unavailable during the construction and reclamation periods, MVE is committed to providing an equivalent feed source to affected grazing permittees. This may take the form of range forage at other locations, private ground forage operations, feedlot space, or other commercial arrangements that MVE may agree to" with ranchers (page S-3). This is more disruption and burden for the rancher. Is this just during construction, or is it also during decommissioning? Is this provision of feed an attempt to buy off ranchers? This is also not good for the cattle, changing a cow's diet can produce problems. "Cattle are creatures of habit and disruptions in their routine can lead to disruptions in feed intake" (pages 2-3 Bunk Management). This is just one reason the ranchers are concerned about the cattle's health. Listed on pages S-3 through S-10 is the impact on those allotments. There is also the plan to have the cattle share their range with sheep (page S-5-6), but putting cattle with sheep can be more complicated because of the differences in grazing habits. Are sheep ranchers okay with this? Do grazing permits include provisions for sheep? Two "preferred" alternatives have been chosen by the BLM, C and E. Below is a graph of the percentage of allotment that would be unavailable in Alternatives C and E (page 3-280). Maps showing how allotments would be affected in the alternatives are on page 3-275 in the DEIS. On the same page this chart shows the number of AUMs that would be unavailable in Alternative C and E. The DEIS has other charts showing the percentages of loss from 3-277 to 3-285, and even references "when Combined with Other Reasonably Foreseeable Renewable Energy Projects." Yes, the BLM has already mapped out its plan for massive areas of Idaho to be degraded. Pages S-9 through S-10 have charts on the number of AUMs affected on just one allotment.
There are laws that protect grazing and the public. 43 CFR § 4100.0-2 - to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands. (b) These objectives will be realized in a manner consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a); 43 U.S. Code § 1701 - "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that, the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of...scenic, historical, ecological, environmental...values...will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for...domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use (a8); the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of...food...from the public lands (a12)." Not only are those qualities not protected in this project, but outdoor recreation is also affected. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)) requires rangelands are managed and improved to be as productive as possible. The Lava Ridge project does neither. It doesn't appear that ranchers were given opportunity to participate in any plan formulation for grazing (f). Rather, a consulting firm appears to have been paid by MVE to develop the plan, in its favor. 43 CFR § 4130.2(e)(1) - "The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock grazing". Clearly, the land will not be available for grazing with temporary fencing that results in allotment reductions and eventual permanent damage. Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) (FLPMA) states, "(7) goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield (MUSY) unless otherwise specified by law". Not only does the project itself violate multiple use principles, but by intersecting allotments and reducing AUMs, sustained yield by the cattle industry cannot be achieved. The Lava Ridge project falls under the mandates of FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (16 U.S. Code § 824p(h)(6)(D)(iv)(v)). 43 USE 1712(c)(9) - "(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act." The BLM failed to initiate Coordination (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)), so it is up to the affected counties to start this process. The BLM is required to follow both the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)), and the FLPMA (43 U.S. Code § 1712(9)) mandates for Coordination. Coordination is defined "as a government-to-government communication process, seeking consistency, in which local government has an equal negotiating position with the federal agencies. This government-to-government communication negotiating process allows local government to participate on an equal basis in all phases of planning and management of land, water and wildlife resources. Such consistency will allow local governments to once again protect the local tax base, sustain a viable and stable local economy, and protect the public health and safety. Clear direction exists for local governments to use coordination to fairly represent citizens in bringing back local control from runaway big governments." Coordination is NOT consulting, collaborating, or cooperating with local governments, nor is it a "subcommittee" that is nothing more than a spectacle of collaboration to placate and divert from the legal mandate to Coordinate. 40 CFR 1508.7 states, "Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." With the current and stated future solar and wind projects by BLM, there will be massive, collectively significant, and cumulative impacts on Idaho land, including the ongoing temporary fencing disruptions. There is also CFR 43 4110.4-2(b) that states "when BLM land is devoted to a public purpose", in this case wind turbines, livestock grazing is precluded from any decrease in land acreage, which invalidates the GCP as it is written. In 2005, the BLM developed the Wind Energy Development Program. This required the BLM to create a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that evaluated potential land use impacts from wind projects. In its Record of Decision (ROD), there are protections for the cattle industry. "The BLM will not issue ROW (right of way) authorizations for wind energy development on lands on which wind energy development is incompatible with specific resource values...Additional areas of land may be excluded from wind energy development on the basis of findings of resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or conflict with existing and planned multiple-use activities or land use plans. To the extent possible, wind energy projects shall be developed in a manner that will not prevent other land uses, including...livestock grazing, recreational use, and other ROW uses" (page A-2). In the BLM Mitigation Handbook, it states the BLM might deny a project if the action would violate a law, or not conform to a land use plan. Or it can be denied if there are "legal, regulatory, land use plan, or policy protections that limit or prevent certain types of impacts" even after mitigation, or "result in unnecessary or undue degradation" to the land (FLPMA § 302(b), 43 USC § 1732(b)) (page 2-15). There is strong evidence that this project qualifies for a denial decision. And besides, how do you mitigate a livelihood? According to its own Wind Energy Program Policies and Best Management Practices (BMPS), BLM wind energy projects "shall be developed in a manner that will not prevent other land uses, including minerals extraction, livestock grazing, recreational use, and other ROW uses (1-1)." Removal of allotments and AUMs prevents land use, along with recreational use, for years. Has the BLM adequately addressed all grazing laws or complied with them? It is time to challenge the BLM on these laws, and encourage county commissioners to invoke Coordination. Much opposition exists, this project is not wanted anywhere in Idaho. For Idahoans who live outside the area, help Magic Valley with this opposition, challenge the BLM on these laws, and if there is data opposing BLM data, send it in. No Idahoan is safe from this energy transition agenda. Comments can be submitted here, just click on the green "Participate Now" button on the left, or comments can be emailed to [email protected]. Tell the BLM that the proposed mitigation measures for cattle are unacceptable and appear to violate federal law. The only option is to deny this project and select Alternative A, No Action (page 2-1). |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|