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.
0 Comments
Similar to Germans infiltrating American lines during WWII, private property owners are being targeted with renewed tactics to manipulate and bribe them into accepting and practicing conservation goals outlined in the current administration's non-authorized 30x30 plan. In fact, behind the scenes groups have been working on this for some time. As a Republic, we have a form of government where elected officials are responsible and accountable to listen to the constituents who elected them. It is time to stop the government infiltration by these groups, bring elected officials back into line, and use our Republic to incapacitate these new tactics. For several years non-governmental organizations (NGO) have recognized their failings in trying to flaunt their elite intelligence onto the masses, instead alienating them. The new tactic is "listening" to landowners, to engage them to join hands. In this report one such failure is discussed by blaming the "crazy people" for protecting their community, then deciding new messaging was needed by using people the community "trusts" to deliver the message. The hidden agenda doesn't change however. With 30x30 the objective is to now "Honor Private Property Rights", Support the Voluntary Stewardship Efforts of Private Landowners", and "Support Locally Led and Locally Designed Conservation Efforts". The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is a free market environmentalism think tank with the absurd notion that it will protect property rights while working with governments and NGOs on policy. Hmmm, isn't protection of property rights in the Constitution and by law? What it really means is that they are targeting private property owners to engage, that is manipulate, bribe and in some cases threaten, to buy into their ludicrous plan for those owners to conserve their own land. As always, there will be an economic cost to either the property owner or the taxpayer. This ruse is really a manipulated variation on conservation easements that stop land development in perpetuity, while expanding the opportunity for the wealthy to make money. But, let's get down to the dirt. PERC and other NGOs developed a way in which to "listen" and empathize with private land owners, one such case was in Wyoming. The focus has shifted from safety issues to an "opportunity" issue for "conserving" beloved wildlife and land. In gaining that trust and acceptance, the perpetrators then have the opportunity to present their "free market" solutions. In reality, this is all a devised scam to engage land owners into the America the Beautiful 30x30 plan, expanding land protection to 30% by 2030. The addition of private property to this conservation total is the goal, while also stopping any development and landowners in migration corridors are a particular target. Right now Paradise Valley in Montana is the target but it is a framework that could certainly be used in Idaho. After citizens were carefully surveyed several recommendations were crafted for new messaging and buy in tactics. Landowner Coordination and Outreach
For hunters, there are also some "tools" that will help conservation, how is unclear. Transferable landowner hunting tags somehow helps conservation but there are catches. Landowners would be required to steward their land in a certain way to qualify for permits with those property conditions tied to the number of permits given, and the landowner would be required to align with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP). Imagine that, a private property owner managing their land under state program requirements. No freedom there folks. Transferable tags "lets landowners tap into the multi-billion-dollar U.S. hunting market". One more perk for private land conservation, giving landowners "permit vouchers, retaining authority to sell permits within state agencies." Here are all the goodies in a nutshell or the longer version. This change in Elk tag distribution hasn't gone over very well in Montana. In this video, National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Collin O'Mara; Nature Conservancy Chief External Affairs Officer Lynn Scarlett; ConservAmerica Brent Fewell; and PERC CEO Brian Yablonski discuss using private land for conservation to meet the 30x30 goal of 30% of land in conservation by 2030. In the discussion it is noted that private land owners are typically the best stewards of land and 2/3 of species rely on that habitat but the focus should be on how land is managed on a large scale, that is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. In one haughty opinion, if this land isn't counted towards conservation it "will lead to working lands not working". Do these people even listen to themselves? At least there was some honesty, it was acknowledged that there is concern that without conservation on private land there will be "more development and fragmentation". This is the strongest clue that these proposed conservation "tools" include some restricted use in perpetuity, similar to a conservation easement. Property owners must be lead to believe this is an opportunity and connect the environment with economics. A broad portfolio of "tools" are needed to entice landowners to participate such as habitat leasing, state tax benefits, and using state SWAP plans for species of greatest conservation need on private land. Ms. Scarlett spoke to investments in the carbon market, conserving land for sequestration, and working with investors for improved water quality. This coming from a woman who works for an outfit that buys land to forever put into non-use or sell to the government. Mr. Yablonski noted they want to "make sure landowners keep doing what they are doing" and "prevent land being switched over to development". Ahh, there it is, the truth. So again another clue that landowners engaging in this conservation ruse would lose rights to development. And in his opinion, NGOs should be allowed to bid on oil & gas leasing, not currently allowed, to prevent extraction of any resources and "they have the money to do that". However, there were several compelling statements in this video. Mr. Yablonski pronounced that private land put into conservation "will be key to making 30x30 a success" and "how those land owners are approached will be a huge deal". Ms. Scarlett boldly stated "We can design the conservation future." Mr. O'Mara identified the need to "get the next generation on board...as the baby boomers are dying out", and this is a "regional canvas" of land for conservation, again ignoring jurisdictional boundaries. He then admitted that the NWF was "involved in the discussions" on 30x30. The NWF is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature which also has the 30x30 plan. Maybe it is the IUCN playbook being used for this scam.
Currently there is no policy on these objectives as PERC is a think tank that sits back and creates these scams; however, a policy wouldn't be needed for these groups to take action on some of the recommendations. For landowners with large acreages this will be an incremental loss of land for development and use, potentially putting areas in Idaho perpetual state of conservation. Since these groups are unable to take land for migration corridors and other protections, it will be accomplished through private land ownership. The working group recommendation will be with private land owners only. But never believe that as partners, the government isn't actively working with NGOs and promoting their objectives. Being pulled into government plans is also another mechanism by which property rights will essentially be run by the government as in the case of SWAP. However, do form a working group of citizens, who live in the county. Create your own development plans for your area and what citizens want for these issues. Develop relationships with both county commissioners and council members, they are accountable to you, not NGOs or the state government. If these elected officials reject citizen input, start a campaign to remove them and find candidates who understand their responsibility to those who elected them. Do not engage with any surveys or enticements with economic goodies. Develop relationships with your state representatives and keep an eye on these issues possibly coming up for legislation. Let your representative know that all of these objectives are opposed. The bottom line is that Idaho citizens have always been the best stewards and experts over their land and wildlife, and will continue to do so because of their love of both. Yet these outsiders think they have to intervene in this expertise and change it into a money making scheme with strings attached. Property owners can share between themselves what they are doing for wildlife without any outside perks or requirements. Keep them out, let them know they will be opposed, and that their guidance and schemes are not wanted. Other videos by PERC can be found here. In 2018, then Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary, Ryan Zinke, issued Secretarial Order (SO) 3362 which, among other things, called for states to begin the process of identifying wildlife migration corridors "on federal lands" and "harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors." Several states such as Wyoming and Oregon have moved forward with supporting this SO, Idaho has been fairly quiet, until now. It seems there has been some typical behind the scenes activity between the federal government and Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG). In April, 2019, the DOI sent a letter to IDFG Director, Ed Schriever, soliciting a second version of Idaho's Action Plan identifying priority migration corridors in Idaho while providing thousands of dollars for research and mapping. Even though SO 3362 specifically stated federal land, this letter makes no mention of it, even providing thousands of dollars for conservation on "private land". Obviously, neither the IDFG Director, nor the DOI contact has any clue that IDFG is a state agency. Where does the DOI get off dictating how a state agency is managed? Did any of this go through the legislature for approval? Were Idaho citizens or their representatives ever advised of this DOI directive? No. However, as usual, the environmental groups, such as Center for Large Landscape Conservation were given the opportunity to provide their input. So, what brilliant plan has IDFG developed to meet DOI demands? What was a "federal lands" issue has now become a "cross-jurisdictional conservation", private land owner "collaboration" effort "to inform land management and habitat conservation actions". At the same time, other DOI agencies must be brought in to "partner" with IDFG to improve "migration corridors on DOI-managed federal lands in a manner that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big game species and respects private property rights." Are they out of their minds? Improve corridors on "DOI-managed" land with state authority on private lands? DOI land has nothing to do with private land let alone state authority over private land. How does a state "conserve" big game and respect private property rights on DOI land? In reality, this is a very clandestine maneuver to hide the fact that the DOI plans to create fake corridors on DOI land while knowing full well wildlife crosses over private property. That is the intention, sucking private property into their fake corridor. What is not being divulged in this scheme is that this corridor scam is about land use regulations and restrictions and is part of their connectivity agenda. Once a corridor is established, a mandate will be issued to "protect" that corridor, everything in its path will be dramatically changed with local land use management authority diminished. The IDFG document itself even speaks to limiting wildlife disturbance (i.e. no recreation) and avoiding development. In its October, 2019 V2.0 Action Plan, IDFG had no problem gathering input from "regulatory agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS, IDL, ITD, and IDWR)", and coordinating with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Nowhere to be found is any effort to talk with the legislature, local jurisdictional authority, or Idaho citizens about this DOI mandate. Maybe citizens just don't have the money to bribe IDFG like the DOI because it is already being taken as tax dollars for the DOI to use against them. Page 8 in the document lists all priority corridor areas in red with no distinction of land ownership, in fact exceeding beyond federal land. Following that page is each targeted area in Idaho, described in detail. The identified migration routes extend across large areas of land, each with different ownership. Those potential migration corridor areas will require the type of land use restrictions mentioned previously. Federal land, protecting habitats, or identifying corridors has nothing to do with this. It is about redesigning all land to dictate where and what type of development can occur and requirements over how private property owners can use their land. It is the federal government behind this agenda and IDFG along with other state agencies being complicit with that agenda. As we are being distracted by the many horrific issues that are tearing our nation apart, the federal government is continuing on its path of tyranny. Collaboration, consultation, and partnering were never written into our Constitution. Our government was designed through representation, starting at the most local level. That representation includes jurisdictional boundaries and specific enumerated powers of the federal government. It is the local counties that have authority over the land. The DOI is coming into our state with a fake corridor scam and successfully using IDFG to execute their intent to rule over land, including private property. While stated as voluntary participation at this point, it will eventually become a mandate. A Secretarial Order is not a law. There is no law that supports IDFG adhering to DOI demands.
Until everyone understands that the government, both at a federal and state level, has become a tyrannical machine this activity will not end. This is highlighted by Governor Little making unilateral decisions to shut our state down, how to spend millions of dollars, and using that money as a bribery to overlook his behavior by placating citizens with property tax relief. What a joke. Heads up Idaho, none of this tyranny will stop until we take necessary actions to stop it. The federal government has increasingly been engaging in public-private partnerships (P3) as a way in which to fund projects. A huge portion of these partnerships involves conservation and land use, but not to the advantage of Idahoans. Rep. Simpson was previously involved in the Boulder-White Clouds designation as a wilderness and actively engaged with the Idaho Conservation League to get that accomplished. Aside from his alliance with non-governmental organizations (NGO), who they themselves are heavily financed by foundations, he is now taking a direct turn to corporate troughs for their endless pit of money, money that is often used to suck up land for non-use, known as syndicated conservation easements. Sen. Risch and Idaho Fish & Game have also turned to corporate money to fund conservation. It seems Rep. Simpson has adopted that approach. Along with Rep. Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Simpson introduced the Land and National Park Deferred Maintenance (LAND) Act. Federal "investment" using corporate profits? Using energy revenues, this bill would "...permanently reauthorize LWCF and create new dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog at National Parks and other public lands.". The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was allowed to expire September 30, 2018, and for good reason. As Rep. Bishop points out, the original LWCF intent was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities" splitting money between state funding and federal land acquisition, with 60 percent going to states. Because of intense lobbying by environmental groups, the majority of that money now goes to the federal government for land acquisition, having added another 5 million acres of land under federal control. Corporatism over our lands advanced after Bass Pro founder John L. Morris, with other corporate and NGO friends, created the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2014 to fund State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), which targets species and habitats for conservation, for 1.3 billion. The same 1.3 billion dollars keeps popping up in other legislation. Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act, introduced in 2018, also addresses the same maintenance backlog of parks, with the same 1.3 billion, in addition to Rep. Simpson's and Sen. Risch's bills. President Trump even previously budgeted Department of Interior money from sales of energy resources on public land for park maintenance backlog in 2018, and again this year. A full accounting of the Department of Interior 2019 budget can be found here. If corporate money is used for these activities, who has control over the land and how it is used? Will our national parks become corporate dens? Environmental groups are thrilled to potentially have their trough restored, regardless of which bill succeeds or where the money comes from. It should be no surprise that P3 "investments" are increasing. Throughout Agenda 21 are references to creating P3's for Sustainable Development (SD) implementation. NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon are heavily funded by foundations and governments, admit to corporate funding, and are even allowed to accept foreign funding for SD. If energy revenues are used for maintenance backlog, what will be the payoff for the corporation in advertising and product distribution? Concern about corporate involvement from corporate donations has already been raised, just how much corporate control will there be through the influence of a P3? What concerns will there be with large sums of money that rebuild infrastructure? Who will get the sweetest deal? How much advertising will be allowed with slogans like, "This eco-restroom was proudly restored by Shell"? We have already seen our sports stadiums being renamed in the honor of some corporation, will this become the direction for our parks? National Parks have a permitting process for commercial activities with requirements on allowed activities. What constraints will be created for corporate financing though a P3? Below is a short video on Agenda 21 P3. Or a slightly longer version is here. Agenda 2030 is no exception for P3, if anything it is an advancement. Keeping in mind that the United Nations (UN) has partnerships with major corporations to implement SD, a.k.a. Agenda 21/2030, it is the natural course for them to use these partnerships as an avenue to integrate their agenda into governments with P3. Because of the SD goals for changing our infrastructure, corporate funding becomes necessary, at least according to the UN, even holding conferences on it. This is a natural way in which to fund and advance their agenda, the caveat for money acquisition is corporate SD requirements, and so very sadly, our elected officials fall for it. Or do they know about it and agree? With P3s, the UN is directing us into corporatism, where our country will be run by corporations through our government, and they have a plan just for that, Vision 2050, it is all laid out on what the world will look like with corporate governance.
Why, Why, Why do we continually fail to remove traitors of our Constitution from elected office? Why are we not able to come together enough for a force that will end this continued destruction of our sovereignty? We cannot continue to haplessly stand by and allow this to happen. President Trump says America will never be a socialist country, yet everything now continues to lead us that way, and in some cases we are already there. P3s are just another way in which it is being done. Contact Rep. Simpson and let him know you vehemently oppose his bill that destroys our sovereignty, that we do not want corporations funding our public lands, that the LWCF should not be renewed due to its use as a government trough for accruing more land, and if he chooses to not listen to his constituents every effort will be made to remove him from office at the next election, or sooner by recall. Pass this on to everyone you know, have them pass it on. It doesn't just affect Idahoans, it will affect every citizen in America. In 2007 the Western Governor's Association (WGA) created the policy Resolution 07-01, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West" which has since been scrubbed from their website. The purpose was "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west." Subsequently in 2008, the Wildlife Corridors Initative established the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (WWHC), accountable to WGA governors. Using GIS tools, the WWHC created the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT). The WGA launched this tool in 2013, managed it through 2014, then transferred it to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) in 2015, where it was renamed the WAFWA CHAT. Implemented in several states, as of this time, Idaho does not have a CHAT site. Here is the result of their work, the Chat map. This tool was also used to integrate wildlife data into transportation projects for mitigation of wildlife vehicle collisions and conservation. Since 1922, WAFWA has represented "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", currently in 23 states and Canadian provinces...". Aside from the treasurer, all Officers are from other states besides Idaho and members include other states and countries. While WAFWA claims to be an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and "not a related organization", IDFG is listed as a AFWA member, there are at least 13 IDFG employees on various AFWA committees, and Virgil Moore, IDFG Director, was named AFWA President this year. Isn't there some sort of conflict of interest here? Shouldn't Moore be focused on Idaho and serving Idahoans rather than other interests? AFWA, originally created in 1902, is based in Washington D.C. and "represents state agencies" on capital hill, among other activities. AFWA members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI). How is this representing IDFG? How boring, why does any of this matter? It matters because now there are corporations and UN NGOs involved and they are driving the agenda, not Idahoans. In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources (BRP) was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal. BRP "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups and state fish and wildlife agencies." Their goals include, "recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.", and "recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations." "The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and "was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis." Panel members include UN partners (Toyota, Shell), UN NGOs (NWF, AS, NSSF), and other groups funded by UN partners. In 2015, the BRP released their final report, deciding America's Fish & Wildlife future, and "recommending a new funding approach". Meeting just three times, they came up with two recommendations. First, they target the difficulty of State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) to fully fund their objectives, which is identifying species of greatest conservation of need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them. Therefore, they recommend, "Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion annually in existing revenue from the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters to the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program. These funds would provide states with the resources needed to implement State Wildlife Action Plans which are designed to conserve 12,000 species in greatest conservation need." They propose oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor and advertise that opinion to the public as, "This story of state-based fish and wildlife conservation is not understood by most Americans.", while at the same time stating, "Investing a portion of these proceeds into fish and wildlife conservation is supported by the public...". Which is it BRP? Do we Idahoans get your propaganda or not? Actually Idahoans understand both, we understand their agenda and the BRP stating we support their agenda is false. How can an hidden agenda that has never been brought to Idahoans be supported? Recommendation 2 "...will convene a working group to examine how shifting demographics and changing attitudes about nature are affecting the relevancy of fish and wildlife conservation.", while also recommending "...state fish and wildlife agencies will need to transform their structures, operations and cultures to meet the changing expectations of their customers." Excuse me BRP, Idahoans are not your customers who can be manipulated into buying your line of false advertising and Idahoans are Constitutionally in charge of their own state agencies. The BRP solution to offset a loss in revenue from decreased hunting and fishing licenses and other fees is corporate involvement. Perceiving that Americans are not connected correctly to their land, the BRP also believes "New funding would also provide resources to states to help reconnect people with nature and improve access to the outdoors to improve health and cultivate the next generation of conservationists." Ok, you are going to spend money to indoctrinate us on your beliefs, like a predator grooms its victim. Maybe we wouldn't be losing our connection to our land if you and others would stop devising ways to ban our ability to use it. Just how will people be reconnected to land when your goal is placing more land into conservation? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. The BRP focus areas are not just limited to conservation. They also include agriculture, international relations, climate change, and bioenergy, to name a few. Both WAFWA and AWFA support the BRP recommendations. To make everything more complicated, the BRP has changed its name to the "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife" (AAFW). The AAFW does not yet identify its partnerships and members. Needless to say, it is most likely nefarious. Simply stated, the BRP is a conglomerate of lobbyists to advance corporate interests and conservation NGO objectives, and have succeeded in getting legislation introduced for the 1.3 billion dollars, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016. However, all of this leads to the true damaging aspect. Corporate involvement has garnered another piece of legislation, H.R. 3400, called the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. Among other things this bill would create a system of National Recreation Areas (RMA) managed specifically for recreation. A National Recreation Area is the counterpart to a designated wilderness area or national monument, an identified protected area for recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association and NGOs love this as it benefits corporate greed, and NGO agendas to lock up and control land. Idaho representation is removed as the AAFW, with its corporate partners and NGOs, will continue to influence the direction of our federal land use. The WGA is also entertaining the idea to "fund landscape-scale conservation through private investments in habitat stewardship and ecosystem services." The Wilderness Society spells out just exactly what a recreation management area is, with all the restrictions, using the BLM as an example. Recreation Resource Management is already providing these types of services. Rep. Simpson already stung us with a RMA in the Sawtooth area, thanks Mike. The UN places great faith in these public-private-partnerships (PPP) for recreation and tourism as outlined on page 14 in this UN World Tourism Organization booklet, even going so far to claim that "eventually the government must rely on the private sector to deliver services to tourists." Really? How did Americans ever get by without crony capitalism or a despot organization dictating our experiences in the wild? Now, the DOI Secretary is promoting the PPP right in line with the UN objectives. As the advances in corporate takeover of our public land continues, another scheme is the "green investment scenario would allow the sector to continue to expand steadily over the coming decades while ensuring significant environmental benefits such as reductions in water consumption, energy use and CO2 emissions." UN business partners will start forcing UN ideology on us as we try to use our public lands. In true technocratic fashion, the UN has broken tourism down into four categories, ecotourism, nature, sustainable, and responsible tourism. The UN has been at this awhile, expanding on tourism in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of Sustainable Development. Chapter 7.20(e) of Agenda 21 promotes sound and culturally sensitive tourism programmes, even writing about it in 1997. In Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 8.9 and 12.B, are targeted to "devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products". Given UN business partnerships are driving us towards corporatism, this is the direction our government is taking us, placing the governance of public land into private business hands which will promote "sustainable" recreation while creating jobs and products, all in support of the UN SDGs. We are being robbed of our God given right to use our land. Land conservation is also falling into corporate hands. The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), established by Congress in 1984 and based in Washington D.C., is a conglomerate of federal agencies, corporations of which many are UN partners, and foundations. It is a "conservation grant-maker"..."to protect and restore our nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats." They have multiple conservation programs throughout the U.S., including the Cabinet-Yaak area in northern Idaho. The NFWF describes the corporate run future of Idaho land in their business plan, which provides "prospective investors" information and "internal guidance" to achieve conservation goals. Money from investors, which matches public dollars with private contributions, is intended to help fund conservation initiatives for "corridors and connectivity". Focal areas include the Cabinet Yakk, US 20 in Island Park, and along the border in the High Divide area for protection and conservation, while bridging "multiple jurisdictions". Themes of that funding include road ecology (wildlife overpasses), habitat protection, and capacity building (getting others to join in their agenda). It isn't enough that the government possesses the majority of Idaho, they want to take more for protection and control. $12.0 million has already been approved for the High Divide project. Not to be outdone, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has joined the corporatism band wagon. In 2014, sponsored by UN business partner JPMorgan Chase & Co, they created a program called NatureVest, which is intended to accelerate their conservation goals. How can the lowly taxpayer compete against all of this corporate money advancing UN goals?
Starting with the WGA, then winding through a barrage of non-Idaho agencies, corporations, countries, and individuals, we are being led to corporations with money that completely bypasses our Constitutional right to local and state representation. IDFG employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through state law. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been turned over to other states and countries, corporations, and NGOs who are here to serve the UN agenda. Sad to say, but Americans have already lost one foundation of our Constitution, representation by elected officials, going instead to corporate control and interests, and the UN. More information on Agenda 21/2030 can be found here. One cannot escape the fact that NGOs, landscape initiatives, and other individuals are embedded with federal government agencies such as the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These groups also have powerful lobbying within both the state and federal government with large amounts of money backing their efforts. Their voice has succeeded in overpowering citizen's voices.
Over the last several years these same groups have been studying the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP). The SWAP was created by each state, in Idaho by Idaho Fish & Game, and although they vary in focus the primary objective is identifying species and habitat of greatest conservation need (SGCN), threats to them, and proposing conservation plans that will be monitored for effectiveness. SWAP is seen as a "living" document that can be updated and revised at regular intervals depending on how the plan is working. These groups are scrutinizing those objectives to intervene during revisions. In 2012, the Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, literally scoured 49 SWAP plans in the U.S., evaluating the language and content for keywords such as wildlife or habitat connectivity and linkage, and possible references towards incorporating these concepts into large-scale conservation plans. Corridors and movement were two other keywords that were counted. These groups see the SWAP as nothing more than an opportunity for a single framework, a national data set that evaluates and compares conservation planning efforts with no jurisdictional lines between or within states, only conformity with standards they want so desperately to define and control. Idaho would no longer be creating standards for Idaho, or standards that Idahoans want. Because some SWAP plans omitted this type of language it was seen as a hindrance to "...coordinated nationwide planning...". Eleven plans succeeded in meeting their criteria for what they consider best practices. This study was done for the purpose of identifying how SWAP plans could be revised to include more language and focus on the goals for connectivity and integration of what they consider are best practices, stating, "...increasing the emphasis on wildlife linkages, using common language, and incorporating these best practices can directly improve subsequent iterations of SWAP...". Since the Idaho SWAP is a "living" document with periodic monitoring for revisions these groups and lobbyists will be ready to make their case for the insertion of connectivity and linkage language into the plan. Since they are already tied into these agencies it shouldn't be very hard to accomplish. The Gary Tabor organization, Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), used the Gulf states SWAP to integrate their agenda, "...working to ensure that they play a foundational role in the GCPO’s Landscape Conservation Design (a.k.a. Conservation Blueprint). To that end the GCPO LCC has invited SWAP leaders to actively participate in the design process..." and "...will help ensure that the work the GCPO LCC does is value-added by integrating States’ plans across administrative boundaries...". The Great Lakes was another target. LCCN is literally drooling over SWAP plans for their pernicious agenda. The Greater Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), a federal program that coordinates these groups, also sees SWAP as "The first step towards integrating landscape efforts", along with the Defenders of Wildlife. This is how the game is played, study the prey, find an opening, then manipulate it for advantages in self-serving agendas. Idaho citizens will not have a say in this in spite of their right to representation. But Idaho Statute, Title 36 36-2405(5) states "The governor’s office of species conservation may petition the responsible public agencies to initiate rulemaking to facilitate the implementation of the approved management plan." and (7) "Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as granting the department of fish and game with new or additional authority." Since Governor Otter is part of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) that partners with the federal government for this conservation agenda, it is highly unlikely rulemaking will be requested. Citizen input for SWAP was not pursued aggressively as with scientists, NGOs, and other outside groups. A public hearing was held in Boise in January, 2016, a Wednesday and Thursday, when people are working, in the dead of winter. Idaho citizens should have first priority for input with these other groups taking a subordinate role. Per Idaho statute there is no authority to enforce SWAP and in spite of getting connectivity or linkage language into the SWAP there is no authority to force it on Idaho citizens. Individuals employed by NGOs and other initiatives work full time implementing their agenda while Idahoans work to earn a living, making it very difficult to find the time needed to oppose this agenda. But it must be done, now. Technocracy is "a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives." The right to representation is removed from citizens while these "experts", also known as technocrats, believe they possess impeccable scientific knowledge and are therefore masters of all solutions. Land issues are the perfect example to describe technocracy implementation. Data gathering is the essence of technocracy, examining everything at a microscopic level, so miniscule that the broader picture is obscured. Technocrats believe every species, plant, speck of dirt, drop of water, and human on land needs detailed examination for ultimate management. This is all based on the irrational fear that humans will overpopulate, necessitating the conservation of land for humans that don't even exist. But the truth is, land is rich with resources needed for life. Because technocrats believe land and its resources will be consumed by too many humans, then both must be conserved and controlled, now. That is the deception. Once the data is collected, it will be used for the goal of controlling and managing all resources, and humans. Created in 2005 by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was just for this purpose, bringing together a group of various technocrats for gathering data on species and habitat which might need conservation. Idaho was broken into fourteen "ecological sections", transcending all jurisdictional boundaries, with the next ten years spent on inventorying fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats, mapping their locations with geographic information system (GIS) layers for analysis. Scientific names were added to traditional names for wildlife and plants. A deer can no longer stand on its own as a beautiful creature, it has to be detailed as to type, what it eats, and where it lives. In ten years, with all this data stockpiled, what was a strategy now became a plan, the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). While this discussion focuses on Idaho, the federal government funded SWAP plans in every state, and the agenda is the same. The list of technocratic "experts" was expanded for this plan. From the CWCS, 205 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were identified, along with their habitat, ecology, and threat information. Not being detailed enough these species were then placed into "tiers" with ranking for conservation need. Going further, species were detailed in each ecological section. For good measure, all vertebrates and invertebrates in the state were inventoried. The more details the better. This resulted in a 411 page document that describes in excruciating detail the species description, conservation status, population trend, habitat, threats, needed conservation action, and other laborious data which will be used to justify the need for regulations that will remove the threat, justifying continued need for conservation. IDFG will need to implement a monitoring system for any changes in this data and that includes more GIS data layers. Needing further detail, the effectiveness of the monitoring will need to be monitored. Adaptive management is used by technocrats to incorporate new information for managing species and habitats. Using "conceptual models", technocrats try to predict desired outcomes for different approaches in conservation to determine if a desired outcome is achieved. In other words, experimenting around with nature. If any of these species or habitat are identified on private property, what will IDFG do? They will have to protect both by regulating your land. Will technocrats have that authority? Because of their power within government agencies technocrats are the likely ones that will make the regulatory decisions. The graphic tells the truth, how microscopic data will lead to regulations that will control how land is used, "influencing day to day compliance", requiring "permit approval", all for the purpose of controlling humans.
Technocracy is the non-violent weapon being used to wage war on America, its citizens, and our system of government. As more data is gathered this weapon will become more powerful in its governance over our lives. There will be no end to it unless citizens exercise their Constitutional right to representation over technocratic agendas. Conclusion
This is the last of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision. Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Part four exposed those who are involved in the effort to redesign Island Park. How Island Park residents are being excluded as a primary voice in decisions was exposed in part five. Now that the full truth is out, where does Island Park go from here? So now the truth is out. There are substantial organizations and foundations that work with federal agencies to promote connecting large landscapes into conservation with eventual regulatory requirements that will dictate how the Island Park community will be designed and how a property owners will be required to design their own land, or even use it. This is a covert agenda by outside groups, NGOs, and both state and federal governments to alter Island Park into some man made design, making it look like a zoo where wildlife can be "enjoyed" rather than letting her exist naturally as she has for generations. The starting point is wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), the Elk who cross US 20 two times a year on their migratory path. Although Targhee Pass is identified as a primary area of crossing and need for an overpass, the Elk actually make their crossing a few miles south of Bighorn Hills. This would require fencing which would force the Elk to alter their natural path. No Elk, or any other wildlife, should die on their journey. The WVC numbers vary depending on which source is cited. All studies were conducted for the specific outcome of overpasses and connectivity while downplaying other alternatives, or even consideration for other possible options. Has the number of WVC, or even the number of Elk deaths increased in 50 years? Those numbers are never mentioned. These initiatives, NGOs, and government agencies with a massive agenda have decided to make the Elk an issue, with their bias, to implement their predetermined solutions. Those who are part of this agenda, these initiatives, will try to dissuade us from accepting the truth, controlling and manipulating the dialogue on compassion for wildlife and the "threat of human-wildlife conflict", while continuing to hide what is coming next and who is involved. That "conflict" is a fabrication from their fantasies. The perception that there is no compassion for the Elk will be promoted. They will try to marginalize folks who do not support their agenda and who are willing to listen to the truth. A negative impression of those who oppose the initiative will be painted as uncaring and disrespectful towards the beautiful animals we all care about. None of this is true. This type of rhetoric is only to distract from the truth, while defining you as the enemy. The larger discussion about private property restrictions and impacts, fencing, acquisition, multiple use reductions, other wildlife and endangered species, the bison and brucellosis, and the connectivity agenda have all been avoided and hidden, and will continue to be avoided if allowed by Island Park guardians. Elk are loved just as much by those who seek the truth. Perhaps their love for the Elk is greater for not wanting to change their natural habitat, forcing them into a man made environment. There is no reason to be ashamed for wanting to protect them and Island Park. Our Founding Fathers believed property rights exemplified the foundation of liberty. “Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay (First Chief Justice) “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams And others believed this as well. “The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” Arthur Lee “Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” Calvin Coolidge Property rights are the most precious gift of our Republic. We are not a democracy where the mob rules, we are a Republic and a nation whose foundation is based on laws, laws that protect our rights. Because we are not a democracy, and in spite of what they may believe, the masses of individuals, groups, government agencies, and wealth behind this agenda do not rule. Fabricated changes to boundaries and rules about land by those with ideological beliefs must never be accepted. It seems most conflicts in the world are centered around the theft of property, the taking of land from others, often leading to battle. The theft occurring now is different in that there is no battle, but the war is the same. Island Park is sovereign, independent from Yellowstone Park, with clear jurisdictional boundaries, not only at a city and county level, but at the state level. These boundaries must be protected and defended. Island Park citizens must come together. They must become knowledgeable about NGOs, federal and state laws, and understand their rights. Understanding the hidden agenda is critical to understanding what rights will be taken from them. Citizens must ask questions, demand answers, and stand up for their rights, both as an Island Park resident and private property owner. Others must be educated on the issues and brought on board with regular meetings that keep everyone current on the issues. When not in residency everyone should stay connected through all means of social media, emails, and other methods, sharing information as it becomes available. Move the discussion beyond compassion for the Elk to the real issues being hidden. Coalition groups or advisory committees should be created to insist that your voice is the primary voice that must be heard with NGOs and other initiatives taking a back seat. Let them know their agenda is not welcome. A broader discussion in solving WVC is needed with other solutions brought forth, including alternatives that haven't been given any consideration. And there are others. If the technocrats say an alternative is not beneficial, research it, find out what other areas have tried them, and the results. Come up with new ideas and solutions and present them to ITD. Keep the pressure on them to listen. Land alteration and forcing a change in the migration path of Elk are not the only answers to protect them. As the guardians of Island Park, to those who are most bonded and connected to the land, stand up for her right to exist naturally, and your rights. Become involved and never allow anyone to change it into an artificially designed, faux zoo landscape. Appreciation for Island Park comes from how it has always existed. Connectivity This is the fourth of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision. Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Now it is time to put all of it together with connectivity, the true agenda. Here is the map of the boundaries in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), where the corridors and components lay. Keeping corridors within the ecosystem boundary is the foundation for connectivity with Island Park as a prime target in the GYE. NGOs and scientists are using the US 20 Corridor and Elk migration to advance connectivity at Targhee Pass. It has nothing to do with saving Elk, the Elk are being used for emotional manipulation and a distraction. Several targeted areas for redesign have now been narrowed down to just the Targhee Pass, only because it is the closest site for connectivity. With the Strategic Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identification of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and priority habitat conservation, along with other corridors, the plan has been established for sequential, consecutive, and progressive steps towards connectivity in the GYE, giving wildlife "room to roam". Island Park has a yellow star for high connectivity, this connectivity plan has been in the works for several years, and that is why she is being targeted. Scientists and NGOs believe connectivity is needed for species population persistence, ensuring that one or many species can move freely throughout the landscape. Because they also believe humans cause connectivity "fragmentation" with land development, a highly aggressive effort is underway to convince land owners to place their land into conservation easements (CE), restrict or ban road use, restrict development and growth boundaries, buy land, and take advantage of road corridors for halting fragmentation. To these groups, connectivity means highly restricted human use to none at all. Corridors and connectivity are the means to control land use. Once land is in their possession, regardless of being a CE, protected or restricted area, or any other designation, control of that land will be dictated by the government, NGOs, and land trust groups. If your county elected officials allow it, these groups will try and convince them to change land use planning in comprehensive plans, forcing you to comply with conservation measures on your property, reduce land use, and dictate or halt how you use your land. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has already "provided site-specific science in this region to aid Fremont County, Idaho to prepare a comprehensive growth and subdivision plan that considers the importance of protecting biodiversity and wildlife migration corridors." The Northwest Property Owners Alliance (NWPOA) in northern Idaho has already been through it and can tell you what will happen if your county acquiesces. They experienced the same dynamics being used by the US 20 Corridor study team including failure to notify, misinformation, and domination by special interest groups. Their article on environmentalism really captures what Island Park is experiencing. In 2015, after two years of steering committee meetings (including UN NGOs and Canada), the Greater Northern Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) released a preliminary "Connectivity Pilot Project" report and "...selected connectivity as a priority shared landscape objective...". The second of four objectives was to, "Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes." The corridors discussed in part three, plus the others listed here will all be used to justify placing Island Park into a massive, large scale, conservation area and eventual integration into the GYE as a protected area, under complete conservation status, with controlled land use. This agenda has been in the works for years, using Elk and the US 20 corridor is just the first step. Their "data basin" is used to "inventory connectivity data"..."identify important areas for action"..."identify potential connectivity opportunities"...with the data also capturing..."'human footprint’ layers"..."land use stressors that may be expected to impact connectivity"..."as well as map layers representing jurisdictional boundaries." Island Park is specifically targeted in this report. Using the High Divide (HD) as their "connection", the short term objective included mitigating US 20 and Hwy 87 corridors and habitat augmentation at highway crossings. Long term objectives included annexing Henry's Fork and Island Park from the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GBLCC) to GNLCC; supporting collaborative work of state and federal agencies, and NGOs to conserve private lands and connect public lands; focusing on landscape water conservation; implementing highway mitigation for key linkages; and creating disincentives for wildlife urban interface (WUI-zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development). Participants in this report included Gary Tabor, Michael Whitfield, Gregg Servheen, and Renee Seidler, the new ITD road ecologist expert for the US 20 Corridor plan. Ms. Seidler has stated her belief in connectivity, her other work is on connectivity, the cooperative agreement between the ITD and IDFG states the job responsibilities included developing programmatic and site specific information and criteria on wildlife connectivity, and her job description states the same. Conveniently, IDFG Wildlife Coordinator, Gregg Servheen, is on the GNLCC Steering Committee mentioned above, and signed the contract between IDFG and ITD for the position Ms. Seidler eventually took through the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). Mr. Servheen also works on helping you turn your land over for conservation easements (CE) through the Private Landowner Network, or find conservation resources. He worked with the Western Governor's Association (WGA) to build data bases on biological information for preserving wildlife corridors and habitats, and the goal to "complete a connectivity/linkage plan" along the High Divide. While all of this gives the appearance of impropriety, it is nothing more than a self-created, conglomerate of government agencies and NGOs, operating under no legal authority, working without public involvement on plans to address issues they created, disguising it as their concern about wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), and which will eventually be used as an excuse for wildlife connectivity. WVC are nothing more than a distraction to keep you from learning about the connectivity agenda. A copy of the contract can be downloaded here.
In fact, the ITD and IDFG were so confident the US 20 Corridor project was in the bag, they hired Ms. Seidler by April 17th to move on to the connectivity phase. This was at least 10 days prior to the cancelled April 27th meeting that was supposed to include Island Park residents and their input. Ms. Seidler is well prepared for this job having previously conducted a study with IDFG in 2014 called: US 20, Island Park Wildlife Collision Study, An examination of Road Ecology in the Island Park Caldera: Elk and Moose Migration Across US Highway 20. The summary states, "Conservation and mitigation efforts for Elk and Moose...will likely have significant positive impacts on habitat connectivity...". A copy of this report can be downloaded here.
The GNLCC held a major workshop in 2015, Conservation of Continental Connectivity through Community Based Collaboration. Presenting at this workshop, the High Divide celebrated their increase in CE from 194,483 acres to 1.2 million in 9 years, and their work in connecting large core protected areas and wildlife connectivity. Their goal is Ecological linkage between protected core areas to conserve wide-‐ranging wildlife in response to climate change, not WVC. To them, "Working Across Boundaries" includes "Local expertise—stakeholder input". This has rarely been sought from Island Park, but rather from an assembly of scientists, government officials, and NGOs, few who even have one connection to Island Park. The goal is complete "protected" connectivity in large landscape areas where Island Park sits. GNLCC held a Resource Managers Connectivity workshop in April, 2015, with Ms. Seidler as a participant and Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield as speakers. Mr. Whitfield was also on the program committee for the 2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation held in Washington, D.C.. Federal government agencies and NGOs comprised 76% of the participants, with only 1% landowners participating. As the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Gary Tabor has created both a Connectivity Conservation Hub in partnership with the GNLCC, located in Jackson, and a Ecological Connectivity Project with all the data and maps needed to conserve "a permable (sic) landscape with connectivity across its geography". According to Mr. Tabor, "A corridor is a distinct component of the landscape that provides connectivity. Wildlife corridors specifically facilitate the movement of animals, while other types of corridors may support connectivity for plants or ecological processes." The Ecological Connectivity Project brings "managers" together who focus on connectivity. "The goal of the project is to conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes." Michael Whitfield from the High Divide is also involved. This project does not include any Island Park residents, only government officials, NGOs, and initiative leaders. The justification for this project are primarily based on executive orders, policy resolutions, white papers, secretarial orders, and regulatory decisions that are not found in Idaho or federal law. However, GNLCC funding for 2017 is directed towards supporting this project for water, species, terrestrial and migration connectivity in large landscapes, your tax dollar. Hidden on a US Geological Survey website is the 2015 proposal, "Landscape Conservation Design in the High Divide" with Mr. Whitfield as the Project Coordinator, and who is also the executive director of the Heart of the Rockies (HOR) initiative. Multiple NGOs, land trusts, and federal and state agencies are involved. The project summary "...seeks support to identify and evaluate future landscape configurations...emphasizing wildlife connectivity between large protected core areas..." such as Yellowstone. The need for "Landscape Conservation Design" was cited as one of the elements of the USFWS Strategic Habitat Conservation Plan. "A conservation design (cluster development) is a type of “Planned Unit Development” in which the underlying zoning and subdivision ordinances are modified to allow buildings (usually residences) to be grouped together on part of the site while permanently protecting the remainder of the site from development." This project supports the GNLCC Strategic Conservation Framework, one goal being to "Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems...". All of the data collection will be used to redesign Island Park into some artificial utopian paradise, rather than let her exist as she has for centuries, or be developed through local representation. And with all due respect sir, do not lump residents into a "Human Modification Index. Workshops on this project were supposedly held in Nov 15' through Fed 16', conveniently when most residents were not available. This is how subversive these groups are. A copy of the proposal can be downloaded here.
These individuals and groups have been working with each other, making decisions about Island Park and the residents, behind their backs. Do those who live in Island Park want their covert plans?
The following initiatives and organizations are actively involved in the connectivity agenda: Heart of the Rockies (HOR); Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and Future West (FW). "Although America's national parks include some of the wildest places on Earth, no park in the U.S....is large enough to support the full range of native biological diversity over the long-term. In order to accommodate wide-ranging animals...our parks must be connected to other protected areas via wildlife corridors and their boundaries should be expanded wherever possible." (Rewilding Our National Parks) A brief word why so many "experts" are making the decisions. These scientists are actually technocrats, experts in science who have a lot of power in, or influence with the government and are an adherent of technocracy. Technocracy is the power shift from elected representatives and bureaucrats to technocrats (engineers, managers, scientists); management of society by technical experts; or a society that is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. Is this not where we are at? Patrick Wood has a series of excellent videos on his website, Technocracy News and Trends, that provide valuable insight into how our government has transitioned over to these "experts" and away from the people. It is the responsibility of elected officials to listen to those who elected them, not technocrats or special interest groups, or those who are not Fremont county residents. Have we abdicated our inherent power and responsibility of self-governance to others? Or has it been stolen from us? No efforts have been taken to disclose or involve Island Park residents in these plans, no alternatives to overpasses and fencing have been discussed, no input has been sought from anyone except the UN NGOs, cooperatives, technocrats, and government agencies, and No discussion has ever taken place on their plans for connectivity. Studies were conducted for the US 20 Corridor plan without required prior notification to Island Park residents. And why should they bother, the protection of Elk is not the issue, it is a distraction from what they are really planning. All evidence points to the agenda for connectivity, on websites, in reports, participants own statements, and in studies. The ITD, their study team, NGOs, and initiatives have not been transparent with Island Park residents, misrepresented what they are actually doing, and have violated every drop of what is ethical. Shame on all of them. It is important to remember, there is no federal legislation for this agenda. What law allows arbitrary erasure of jurisdictional boundaries? This is a concerted effort by individuals and groups with an ideology, who have successfully engaged the government with the same ideology, and are proceeding forward without any laws. Island Park has a population of 286 as of 2016. That swells to several thousand during the summer when residents come to their summer homes. The number of individuals pursuing this connectivity and conservation agenda are in the thousands, with millions of dollars being funneled into it. Island Park residents, who own homes and pay taxes, are the guardians of Island Park, and who elect city and country officials to represent them. Officials are obligated to listen to their voice, not special interest groups from other states or counties. The technocrats and elite who believe they know better, and who hide their agenda, are usurping those rights. Is this what Fremont County citizens want? The Declaration of Independence states governments derive "...their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Idaho Constitution, Article I, Section 2 states, "All political power is inherent in the people." It is time to recapture the self governance our Founding Fathers created for us. No individual wants Elk harmed and WVC must certainly be addressed. However, tearing up and environmentally engineering the land for ulterior motives is not the solution, there are other alternatives beyond what the technocrats say won't work that require consideration. Island Park residents should be the lead in discussing these alternatives, how they want to protect her and the Elk, and the ones who hold the right to make those decisions. These technocrats and NGOs have zero connection to Island Park, spending their time reducing it to nothing more than a mathematical formula, and assigning point values for the purpose of artificially engineering it into something that it isn't. There is no Island Park asset that has more or less value than another and in spite of what they say or believe, this land is not "fragmented" by us, it is fully connected in every way. They are welcome to visit and walk on the path they designated, but respectfully, do not come to Island Park for environmental engineering, passing it off as a transportation project for saving wildlife when your true goal is connectivity and "conservation design". As her Guardians, Island Park is ours to protect, not yours to alter. Part 5 will reveal where all of this originated. This is the third of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision. Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered These topics create the foundation for corridors and connectivity. Varying greatly in size, shape, and composition, corridors can be described as routes or land tracts used by migrating animals, land designated for specific purpose such as highways like the US 20 Corridor, or they connect "fragmented" patches of habitat. Corridors are seen as a way to increase connectivity, such as transportation or between patches of fragmentation supposedly caused by humans due to different types of land development. Scientists often call this the "anthropogenic" effect, meaning fragmentation is the result of human influence on nature, which NGOs and scientists describe as disruption and "barriers" for plants and animals to survive. They believe corridors, especially protected corridors, provide an unbroken path of suitable habitat and safe passage, if it weren't for humans disrupting it, and connectivity. Three types of corridors follow. Biodiversity corridors are areas of vegetation that allow animals to travel from one patch to another, providing shelter and food for different species. Blaming anthropegenic activity, scientists believe that all species become isolated and unable to migrate as intended because of human "barriers". Elk don't care if they cross your property to get where they are going, they and other grand creatures do it all the time. The agenda underway is identifying biodiversity corridors for conservation to restrict or mandate a full ban on all "anthropogenic" activity, thus ensuring species movement between patches, which already exists now. Island Park residents know differently, we have co-existed with all animal species and their movement from before the time of my father. Wildlife corridors are tracts of land allowing wildlife to migrate for food, shelter, and mating between habitats with migratory paths as an example. Wildlife use biodiversity corridors during their journey for necessary food and shelter. Elk, moose, and other migratory species in Island Park have migrated along these paths for centuries. Who in Island Park has not watched them on their land as they move through? Riparian corridors have everything to do with water. This includes wetlands, marshes, ponds, streams, creeks, springs and lakes. Water species such as fish and beavers, and plants that thrive in wet environments are all included in these corridors. These corridors naturally intersect with biodiversity and wildlife corridors and are often extended by scientists to include buffers, zones, and land for restricted use. Everything is connected to water. However, scientists believe anthropogentic activity is destroying natural corridors and corridors should be sewn together for connectivity, with no "disruption" or "barriers". NGOs, scientists, and the government want us to believe they have the knowledge and authority to artificially engineer corridors. Sorry, Mother Nature beat you to it, her corridors already exist naturally, scientists are only artificial engineers and will never surpass Mother Nature. It is disheartening to watch scientists attempt to environmentally engineer land and corridors that are already perfect with roads and private land not disrupting migration paths, the paths are still there. In 2008, the Western Governor's Association (WGA) participated in this agenda, signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the DOI, DOE, and Department of Agriculture to "coordinate and identify key wildlife corridors and crucial wildlife habitats for uniform mapping and recommendations on policy options and tools for "preserving those landscapes". Did Governor Otter contact you for your opinion? How about those other governors making decisions for Idaho? While the USDA touts the benefits of corridors, there are also studies that have been conducted on the detrimental effects. Because species are crowded into a artificially designed landscape it is often an invitation for invasive species, whether plant or animal, and increased predator behavior. There is also the belief that fragmentation lowers genetic diversity if one herd can't get to another. Elk have been moved around to different locations by scientists for experimentation on their genetic diversity and divergence (mutation). What impact does this have on Elk and the natural order of the environment which is subject to natural laws, not human? Another aspect to corridors is conservation easements. According to the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition, "Often CE properties are enrolled into programs for introduction of endangered species or development of ‘corridors,’ a initiative itself that can profoundly affect communities, industry and private lands. The introduction of endangered species substantially impacts the productivity of neighboring properties." This is the intention of SWAP, identifying species of greatest concern and habitats needing protection. Something to keep in mind if you are asked about placing your land into a conservation easement. Your property may have already been identified for conservation "value" which might contribute to an effort for corridor conservation. These corridors, and all their components, lie within an ecological boundary known as an ecosystem. Ecosystem can be defined as "a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment." Scientists have included Island Park in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). The GYE boundaries are shown in this map. The American Wildlands "Corridors for Life" program from 2007, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) with whom the new road ecologist Renee Seidler is connected, and the USFS focus on creating wildlife corridors for connectivity while the North Pacific LCC, Washington State University, and GNLCC focus on riparian connectivity. Using corridors for connectivity is published in their agendas. The scientists who conducted studies in Island Park even admit that wildlife overpasses are needed for connectivity but have not disclosed that to the public. Island Park residents are provided only information about wildlife vehicle collisions to justify the need for wildlife overpasses while the bigger threat, changing the environmental structure, culture, identity, ownership, and heritage of Island Park, is omitted.
Gary Tabor, founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and who mingles with all the local initiatives, worked with Va. Rep Donald Beyer (D) on H.R. 6448 (114th): Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Although not enacted in 2016, there are plans to reintroduce it again this year. This bill would create a "National Wildlife Corridors System" which would mean federal law for corridor designation, much like a national monument designation. Island Park residents don't want to be a federally designated anything. Also not welcome, a Virginia representative making decisions that would potentially affect Island Park. The new ITD "road ecologist", Renee Seidler, participated in a migratory study on Pronghorn in Wyoming. While the WCS claims the "U.S. Forest Service established the nation’s first federally designated wildlife corridor" in 2008, the truth is somewhat different. It was not a declaration of the "first" federally designated corridor, it was a forest plan amendment that merely allowed "continued successful pronghorn migration." Amending the "...Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan by designating a Pronghorn Migration Corridor...", it added the following standard, “All projects, activities, and infrastructure authorized in the designated Pronghorn Migration Corridor will be designed, timed and/or located to allow continued successful migration of the pronghorn...", while not constraining "...activities on private land..." within the forest boundary. The report also states, "...activities currently authorized by the Forest Service within the corridor coexist with successful migration..." such as grazing, and concluded that no changes were needed for grazing or infrastructure. So, the Bridger-Teton National Forest Supervisor, in a NEPA Environmental Assessment phase, casually gave a name to a section of forestland that already existed, the NGOs then exaggerating it into some grand event which didn't exist. There was no congressional act or official designation, no state declaration, no proclamation, nothing. The BLM is not part of this forest plan amendment. "The amendment just signed does not protect the entire pronghorn migration - it applies only to 45 miles of the migration corridor located on Forest Service lands. The remaining 30 miles of the migration route occur on private lands and areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM." Seasonal protection of the Pronghorn is provided by the BLM but there is no federally designated Pronghorn corridor as the NGOs would have us believe. Now this exaggerated claim has been stretched to declaring the "Path of the Pronghorn" as the "only federally-designated wildlife migration corridor in the United States". It is misleading and dishonest. Beware, the WCS is watching Craters of the Moon stating Pronghorn are "...restricted by mountains, fences, a highway, and fields of jagged lava from Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve...”. How do those Pronghorn migrate every year in spite of these restrictions and natural landscapes? Using the Elk migratory path is just the first step, next will be a demand to protect the biodiversity corridor, then a riparian corridor, any corridor will be used to continue sewing them together for control over the land while describing it as connectivity, and for a "seamless" integration into the GYE. They don't care about the Elk, they are only interested in using them to take land for their agenda. Island Park residents have "connectivity" with their land as my father did, and those before him, crossing different "corridors" that allow us to remain "connected" to our land. We get it, we know the abundance of gifts that are provided. But there is no justification for taking what already is a blended and pristine area, breaking it into ecological categories and corridors, violating state and county sovereignty, then creating plans to alter it. This misrepresents the reality that Island Park is already connected, in every way. The only disconnection is the one that is fabricated by scientists, NGOs, and the government. It is their imaginary utopia being imposed on Island Park residents, and those poor Elk. The greater plan by scientists and NGOs is putting Island Park into full conservation status without your consent, creating artificial landscape designs and boundaries, convincing you that corridors aren't connected because a road or your house is in the way, telling you connectivity is needed for integration into an ecosystem where it already exists, and destroying our God given right and legal authority as Fremont County residents to control how land is used. From the Declaration of Independence: It becomes necessary for one people to assume: "...the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". The consent of the governed has not been given for these plans. Part 4 in this series will discuss connectivity, who is involved, and its implications. |
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
|