Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals.
Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel.
The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use.
Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types.
The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention.
If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land.
WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening.
Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030.
Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint.
It is well known that the federal government is heavily in bed with non governmental organizations (NGO), especially our resource agencies through the Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). What may not be understood is how big that bed is or why federal agencies continue to implement NGO objectives over the voice of citizens. The Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC) provides the explanation.
The NLC "mission" is advancing "...collaborative, cross border conservation as an essential approach to connect and protect nature, culture, and community". Note should be taken on that cross border statement. This means across states, counties, and countries, the primary country they are referring to is Canada. There is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. NLC is a "hub" of organizations and individuals who participate in the agenda to place as much land as possible into conservation. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Nature Conservancy, Land Trusts, Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM), conservation zealots, and others all serve on the coordinating committee. NLC membership includes "100-plus organizational partners and 2,000-plus involved practitioners."
While NLC claims to "bring people together", it is really about robbing citizen rights for representation through their elected officials, instead placing decisions with those who have no interest other than implementing their own ideology. By their own admission, they recognize this is a "shift in process" that "...crosses jurisdictional and topical boundaries, transcending traditional decision-making processes (meaning the foundation of our government as a Republic), and top-down hierarchies." It is government run amok with tyranny.
Recently, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were "discontinued". However, efforts are now underway by USFWS and state agencies to fund the same objective through "public and private partners" and continue their conservation work. NLC is also pursuing funding for their objectives through a newly created Catalyst Fund, with money coming from foundations. This money will be used to help "build capacity", that is, it will bring in more partners to overpower us with their objectives and build up NGO activity. All of their initiatives in Idaho can be found on this map with the names of the groups that are executing their agenda upon us. Get to know those names so you know who you are dealing with, and their objectives. Since the cooperatives were eliminated, or at least diminished in their capacity, the governments and NGOs are now coalescing into organizations such as the NLC, there are many others. This is creating possibly a new, more powerful mass that will increase their threat towards us.
As seen here, NLC partners include the USFS, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, NGOs, land trusts, foundations, policy centers, and universities. Nowhere to be found are citizens or local governments. It is these groups and individuals who are making decisions with the federal government on land use, if use is even allowed at all. In conjunction with these groups, federal agencies write policies, then, using the Delphi technique, parade around in front of us with a charade of phony collaborative meetings to placate us into believing we have input. Opposing science to theirs is ignored, violating the Data Quality Act, and impacts to local businesses are dissed which is in conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Included in these ignored laws is the mandate for Coordination, the requirement that a federal agency meet with local governments to ensure consistency in land use policies prior to any action being taken.
While the NLC claims local governments are aware of and support landscape conservation, when is the last time your elected official announced this support to constituents? Is it the intent for local governments, who hold the highest authority for governance closest to the people, to align "...with appropriate state, federal and non-governmental programs to support landscape conservation..."? Or is that support hidden through unelected associations such as the National Association of Counties? NLC admits to incorporating their objectives "...into existing state policies and programs—in traditional conservation programs like State Wildlife Action Plans...". There is no escaping the fact that the intent is to align government policies that support landscape conservation in all levels of government. To learn more about those objectives NLC has archived webinars which provide insight into how these individuals and groups think and their ideology.
The truth is, federal agencies are in partnership with the NLC and its members to develop policy, however the members of the "Policy Working Group" are not identified. A policy paper was written for President Trump shortly after he was elected, deciding for you that you believe in their brand of conservation, asking for continued use of your tax dollar to support them, and supporting the creation of partnerships with the private sector. Perhaps the groups listed in that paper identify those who are part of the working group. This is why citizens cannot get their voice heard, the NLC and all of their cronies have already made the decision with the federal government. In fact, the 1964 Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser from the Wilderness Society. That is how long the NGOs have had control. Completely left out of the equation is local government and citizen involvement. The federal government works for these groups, not us.
For all of those who are experiencing these atrocities on local issues, your voice being ignored in decisions about public land, take this information to your next meeting with a federal agency, start asking questions about their partnerships with NGOs, and provide those NGO names. Make them aware that you know these partnerships exist and ask that documentation of their work with each other is made available to you. Demand answers, you have a right to know who is running the show with these agencies. Publicize your knowledge about this information, identify the groups and players and name them, identify their objectives and how it aligns with federal agency actions. Expose them, confront them, let others know so they can join you. Now is the time to disrupt their agenda and expose the truth.
In addition to reinstating large conservation cooperatives (LCC) after revoking them through his Secretarial Order 3349, Sec. Zinke now has grand plans to reorganize the Department of Interior (DOI) which will further erode state sovereignty.
The essence of reorganizing is redrawing "regional" boundaries and moving employees out of D.C. into those regions for closer "collaboration" with states for streamlining DOI efficiency. There have been some accusations that he is gutting the DOI.
DOI regional boundaries as of December 22, 2017 are outlined in the map below.
Sec. Zinke initially reorganized departmental regions based on watersheds and ecosystems, reducing 40 regions down to 13. The first revised regional map based on that concept is below. Montana had specific issues with the state being cut in half by these boundaries.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) objected to the watershed, ecosystem idea for boundaries, writing a letter to him requesting regional boundaries were based instead on state boundaries. Given one of his initial reasoning for reorganization was partly based on working more closely with states, it is ironic that he failed in the first step to create these boundaries with WGA involvement. What does that tell you? WGA also commended him on "...your addition of the goal of improving coordination among federal, state and local agencies...". That is an interesting statement as federal law has specific coordination requirements for local governments which is different from federal and state coordination. Multiple other associations joined with the WGA and signed the letter to Zinke. Oddly enough, as a result, Sec. Zinke decided to refine his regional boundaries more closely along state lines as seen below. The WGA was "gratified" with the new map.
Many questions have arisen with the new DOI plan. Sec. Zinke's plan is to assign an Interior Regional Director (IRD) in each region, whose responsibility will include coordination of missions and administrative functions between bureaus within the region. While special consultation with Tribes is mentioned, there is no mention of consultation with local governments or citizens.
Drawing boundaries along watersheds was the original intent, however the new state boundary alignment does not necessarily change that intent, "...new regional watershed-based boundaries are often adjusted to line up with the nearest state boundaries."
As Sec. Zinke explains in this video, his thoughts about placing land into federal protection as did Theodore Roosevelt, and John Wesley Powell's notion of land preservation and conservation, should give a clear picture of what he intends to do. Sec. Zinke adds to this with his intent to create wildlife corridors which would also cross state boundaries.
The problem with reorganizing along ecosystems and watersheds is that there is no defined boundary between federal, state, and private land. Unlike a specific tree line or boundary that can be drawn on land as it is now, an ecosystem often has no clear boundaries due to it flowing into another ecosystem, therefore an ecosystem must be managed as it has an ever flowing connection with everything. As seen in the map below, there is no clearly defined boundary between the ecosystem elements and watersheds, they are continuous and connected. Disrupting one part affects the rest. Ecotone is a term used to describe transitions between different ecosystems but is not necessarily a boundary.
According to environmentalists, no boundaries exist in landscapes because of connectivity, and boundaries such as county and state lines that define us become irrelevant. That is essentially what Sec. Zinke is planning, creating large regional ecosystems that includes connectivity between them, providing ecosystem management, and crossing over all jurisdictional boundaries. If an ecosystem needs restoration, flowing into another over state or private land, how will Sec. Zinke manage that? If consulting and collaborating with states, it seems that the IRD will possibly need to interfere with state sovereignty for ecosystem restoration and protection.
As noted in Secretarial Order 3362, Sec. Zinke wants to "...harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big game winter range and corridors.", and establish "...a clear direction forward with each State...". He wants to plant federal agents in each state to help bind us further together with the federal government. Where did he formulate the idea that the DOI determines the forward direction of our state? Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.
As a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) member, Sec. Zinke will most likely bind us to their notion of ecosystems and managing them through DOI agencies. The IUCN already has a Red List of Ecosystems with categories and criteria for micromanagement on restoration and protection.
As yet, this reorganization has not been approved by Congress. If you would like to provide feedback on this reorganization, you can contact the DOI here. Let Sec. Zinke know that we have sovereignty and do not want the federal government coming to our state for harmonization between state and federal policies, and that Idahoans will decide how our land is managed.
It is understood that all conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are attached to Washington D.C., they hob nob together, make their devious plans in partnership, and leave us out.
With the exposure of activity behind the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and others behind their conservation and connectivity agenda, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke has now incorporated them into the DOI workforce. Created by DOI Secretarial Order 3289 and implemented by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), these initiatives partner through the GNLCC, and it is a distinct probability that the DOI was advised of this exposure and investigated it. What better way to solve this exposure problem than to wave a magic wand and create a Secretarial Order (SO) that gives the GNLCC de facto authority to continue operating. Even the Greater Yellowstone Coalition understands this.
On February 9, 2018, while attending the Western Conservation and Hunting Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sec. Zinke announced his SO 3362, which is meant to "...improve habitat quality and western big game winter range and migration corridors for antelope, elk, and mule deer."..."...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...", foster "...collaboration with states and private landowners and...ensure that robust big game populations continue to exist."...and "...help establish better migration corridors...". What a bunch of crock. In spite of all the lauding of his accomplishments on the DOI site, Sec. Zinke just pulverized anything positive for Idahoans with this SO. This SO isn't about access to hunting, it is about putting land into conservation which leads to control over land use.
As "partners", the DOI agencies USFWS and National Park Service (NPS) give conservation initiatives authority in the GNLCC. Primary objectives of the GNLCC are conservation of large landscapes and creation of corridors for connectivity. Essentially, Zinke just gave full authority to the GNLCC to continue in spite of the fact he revoked LCCs with SO 3349, which were created by SO 3289, and then advanced with SO 3330. SO 3362 essentially reinstates and expands what he just revoked as a directive that still has no legislative authority.
There are several key sections of the SO 3362 that require scrutiny.
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of...Idaho...to enhance and improve the quality of...migration corridor habitat on Federal lands...that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.
Our Republic does not include federal partnerships with states, states are sovereign. Nowhere does this SO state that citizens or local governments are involved in these decisions, or those who would be the most impacted by land use changes. Private property is a right and protected by the Fifth Amendment and Idaho law, it is not something that can just be "respected" by a federal agency. If the DOI truly recognizes state authority then why the "partnering"?
Page two states, "...it is crucial that the Department take action to harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors...if landowners are interested and willing, conservation may occur through voluntary agreements."
Translated this means federal policy will become state policy, "harmonize". As a DOI program, the GNLCC is also being used to incorporate their objectives into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), and while landowners may be duped into "voluntary" agreements for conservation, initiatives work to get those conservation land use policies into local comprehensive plans, which will eventually become mandatory.
3c "Within 180 days, develop a proposed categorical exclusion for proposed projects that utilize common practices solely intended to enhance or restore habitat for species such as sage grouse and/or mule deer...". This essentially gives authority to maneuver around NEPA requirements, one of which is public participation.
Sec. 4.a.(1) ...identify an individual to serve as the “Coordinator” for the Department. The Coordinator will work closely with appropriate States, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or associations to identify active programs focused on...migration corridors.
Again there is no citizen or local government involvement and the "and/or associations" is clearly referencing the DOI created GNLCC. This SO cements their authority and now drags in state agencies whose role up to this time has been fairly hidden in the GNLCC. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) will more than likely be playing a larger role in the federal agenda for placing land into conservation.
4.b.(1) With respect to activities at the State level...identify one person...to serve as the Liaison...will schedule a meeting with the respective State fish and wildlife agency...work in close partnership with the State on...migration corridor conservation.
Take note of that "conservation" wording. This is a Freudian slip by Zinke, the SO is really targeting land conservation, not improving big game hunting. IDFG already has a wildlife conservation program, one for "landowners", and a Habitat Improvement Program for private land owners. Now a federal "Liaison" will be interfering in these state programs.
4.b.(4) Assess State wildlife agency data regarding wildlife migrations early in the planning process for land use plans and significant project-level actions that bureaus develop.... As previously stated, the goal will be harmonizing federal planning with state planning, we will be living under federal policy "that bureaus develop".
4.b.5(iii) working cooperatively with private landowners and State highway departments to achieve permissive fencing measures, including potentially modifying (via smooth wire), removing (if no longer necessary), or seasonally adapting (seasonal lay down) fencing if proven to impede movement of big game through migration corridors;
Zinke just gave the GNLCC and conservation initiatives the authority to continue their camaraderie with the Idaho Transportation Department for integration of wildlife overpasses and fencing, forcing wildlife into different migratory paths, both which lead to the creation of a wildlife corridor and ultimate land use control.
4.b.5(iv) avoiding development in the most crucial winter range or migration corridors during sensitive seasons;
4.b.5(v) minimizing development that would fragment winter range and primary migration corridors;.
There it is, the truth, the goal is restricting use or banning land development within or adjacent to a migratory corridor.
4.d.(3) Consult with State wildlife agencies and bureaus to ensure land use plans are consistent...to one another along the entire wildlife corridor...where...migration corridors span jurisdictional boundaries.
Zinke is referring to local comprehensive or land use plans, and jurisdictional boundaries includes private property. It is critical that citizens engage with elected officials on comprehensive plans, ensuring no reference is made to corridor protection or conservation. If local land use plans do not reference these then federal policy for corridors and conservation will be inconsistent with local policy and the feds will have more difficulty proceeding with conservation policies until consistency is reached. Coordination is in federal law, written into USFS, BLM, and FHA (23 CFR 774.5) laws, that coordination shall occur between the federal and local governments to ensure consistency between land use policies. It is not consulting, cooperating, or collaborating because coordination puts the local government on an equal footing with the feds, not subordinate. The feds do not like this law, they would like to just mow over local governments and us with their plans, without coordination, The 10th Amendment guarantees this protection for states and its citizens and recently the Idaho Senate addressed the coordination requirement in SJM103.
4.b.5(i) Habitat management goals and associated actions as they are associated with big game winter range and migration corridors;
This statement references the creation of other corridors which can include riparian, biodiversity, or ecosystems, potentially expanding federal control over land use because these habitat types extend from public land into state and private land. An example is his reference to "sagebrush ecosystems...other ecotypes...and sagebrush landscapes". Migration corridors require other types of corridors that support wildlife. A habitat management example is the Sage Grouse, of which sage brush protection was needed for its habitat. Translated, "Habitat Management" means conservation or protection. Not only will SWAP plans be used as they identify species and habitat of greatest conservation need, but Zinke also plans to use the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) as a mapping tool for land use (4.c.).
The subject of the SO is "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors". In that title where does it indicate the SO will "...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...". Priority habitats are those typically protected for a game species as in the Sage Grouse example. What is meant by "improved" priority habitats? Corralling wildlife with fencing and forcing them into different migratory paths? Moving all humans and development out of the way? Creating pseudo corridors that already exist and which already cross private property without any problems?
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), of which the GNLCC is a member, is actively involved with the UN NGO, International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), bringing IUCN ideology back to us. Gary Tabor is a partner with the GNLCC through his Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and works as Specialist Group Leader for the IUCN. Rob Ament is also a IUCN member and contributes IUCN ideology to the GNLCC.
Below is two short video from the IUCN website, part of a series of modules on Protected Area Law (PAL). When referencing protected areas, an example is the agenda currently underway to connect Island Park to Yellowstone National Park for an extension of protected land, using wildlife overpasses as the basis for a corridor. Sec. Zinke is using an SO to achieve IUCN objectives. And why wouldn't he, the DOI and USFWS partner with the IUCN, gives your tax dollar to them, while assisting with the implementation of Agenda 21.
Starting at minute marker 5:22 is Yellowstone 2 Yukon promoting IUCN ideology for connectivity.
This West Is Our West has an excellent article, written by Clifford C. Nichols, Is Zinke 'Migration Corridors' order the Endangered Species Act on Steroids? His article brings out some other pertinent points on the SO.
Sec. Zinke isn't fooling anyone. His goal is conservation and control over land use. It is appalling that all of this activity is hidden from us, stripping us of our "consent of the governed" role. Without any federal law he is sanctioning an expanded, behind the scenes, directive that further erodes our right to local representation and state sovereignty. Sec. Zinke, Idahoans have not given consent to your SO 3362.
Update: 2019 Because Idaho has a statute that forbids other state ownership of utilities, this case was settled in court.
Aside from the possibility that north Idaho Avista customers will be under a Canadian electric utility, Hydro One, there is a far more serious problem in that a U.S. electrical grid will be run by a foreign country.
Hydro One is a Canadian electricity transmission and distribution service provider. Even though Hydro One is a private company, up until 2015 the Government of Ontario held 100% of its shares, at which time the government decided to sell up to 60% shares to raise money for infrastructure improvements. One concern expressed at that time was the possibility of foreign investments, which did happen with the Bahrain Gulf International Bank (GIB) holding approximately 93k shares. As of May, 2017 Ontario held the remaining 49.9% shares.
In July, 2017 Hydro One bought the American energy company Avista for $5.3 billion U.S. dollars as part of their plan "to grow our business to become a North American leader", creating "one of the largest regulated utilities in North America." Avista will be allowed to "keep its existing corporate headquarters... and continue to operate as a stand-alone utility in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska." Scott Morris, Avista president, likes this deal because of future "opportunities in a consolidating industry landscape for the benefit of our customers.” Morris also stated, "The partnership largely allows Avista to preserve how it does business with its customers, enables it to continue to pursue technological innovation, and permits it to take advantage of operating efficiencies and shared best practices".
Sovereign boundaries between countries are now nothing more than an industry landscape? Ontario sits on the border from Minnesota to New York, now northwest states are part of this landscape?
According to Daiene Vernile, Member of Provincial Parliament, the Ontario Energy Board will set rates and Ontario will retain regulatory control. She better get together with Scott Morris, there seems to be a disconnect between their understanding of the deal. Wow, American electricity rates under a foreign country. Avista shareholders approved the deal November 21, 2017 but Avista is already being investigated for "potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors". The deal requires the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and per this October 5, 2017 Order Avista promises no increased rate hikes and better service, Avista stock will be purchased by Hydro One, and August 14, 2018 is the final date of closure on the deal. On the other hand IPUC must find that "the transaction is consistent with the public interest". How is selling an Idaho utility out to a foreign country or allowing a foreign country determine what rates an Idahoan pays for electricity consistent with public interest? Entangling our electrical assets with foreigners has been going on for some time, such as the San Diego Gas & Electric entering into a "partnership" with the Russian Federation in 2010.
As part of the deal Hydro One will now also own Avista dams including the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, Little Falls, and Long Lake dams in Washington and the Cabinet Gorge and Post Falls dams in Idaho, found on this map.
Rates were already rising prior to the selling of Ontario shares. Dismantling Ontario Hydro created a $38.1 billion debt, paid off by ratepayers through the “debt retirement fee” which was removed in 2016. However, Ontario residents continued paying higher rates, attributed to an oversupply of power, the cost of green energy such as wind and solar, and poor government management. Ontario recently took action to reduce rates while continuing reduced rate programs for those in certain categories ensuring "greater fairness". Hydro One has a history of poor billing service and was also ordered to cut administrative costs this year. In 2016 an audit revealed customers were overcharged $37 billion. Is this the type of financial mismanagement now being brought to Idahoans? Hydro One intends to continue buying U.S. electric companies which could potentially put them in control of all Pacific Northwest electrical coverage.
The way in which our energy is regulated is complex and only a few examples are given here. The most disturbing aspect of this transaction is the advancement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) intent to "harmonize" the Electricity Sectors across North America, which means "fully integrating energy policies" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and integrating electrical grids. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a "not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.", and whose "jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system..." which stretches from Baja Mexico, through the United States, into Canada. Here is the NERC map. Idaho is located in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. Hydro One is located in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). Integrating our electrical grid with Canada has been advancing since at least 2012.
Electrical grids are separated into three areas, generation (hydropower, renewable, coal), transmission (lines that carry electricity), and distribution (electricity delivered customers). The WECC Bulk Power System (BPS) includes transmission equipment which generate and deliver electricity across North America but does not include local distribution systems. Below is a BPS graphic. NERC has a delegation agreement with WECC to ensure WECC reliability standards are met and advance NERC reliability standards, which are international.
WECC Committee members include individuals from Avista, Bonneville Power, Idaho Power, Canada, Arizona, California, the BLM, and others. They also develop and implement "Regional Reliability Standards and Regional Criteria for the Western Interconnection" which includes Canada and Mexico standards. The Board of Directors are not elected by Idahoans to represent them and their electricity needs. As in so many other issues, the United States is being broken up into regions and subregions, erasing all sovereignty, whose representation is being obliterated by individuals who are not elected by us but who have authority to make decisions about our lives, and then regulate us under international standards. The United States is being transformed into a borderless country.
One Department of Energy (DOE) goal is integrating renewable energy. Coincidentally, representatives of UNIDO and UNEP have served on advisory committees to this goal (iv)(116) as both of these United Nations (UN) organizations support energy integration. The UN Department of Economic Social Affairs (DESA) also wants "International Electric Power Grid Interconnections". DOE has joined hands with the UN in their Sustainable Energy For All (SE4ALL) program, implementing Agenda 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, enhancing "international cooperation" (7.A), and "foreign direct investment in financial transfer for infrastructure and technology" (7.B.1).
In Agenda 21, DESA was assigned the responsibility to "...undertake the task of directing system-wide coordination and integration of environmental and developmental aspects of United Nations policies and programmes..." (38.10). Chapter 30, Strengthening The Role Of Business And Industry, also addresses the need for "cleaner production, cooperation, and partnerships" (30.1), to "mix laws and standards with industry" (30.8), and "facilitate exchange of technology" (30.23), which Hydro One supports. Chapter 31, Scientific and Technological Community, commands promotion of "regional cooperation, expanding international and regional agreements" (31.4bc), and promoting "international acceptance of codes of practice and guidelines relating to science and technology" that is "recognized by the society as a whole" (31.9). These UN objectives are advanced by the DOE and the deal between Avista and Hydro One.
Why doesn't the federal government just quit pretending, announce we are being run by UN dictates, and admit to all of their UN partnerships?
Canada is a global partner to UN Sustainable Development which Hydro One follows in their Corporate Social Responsibility program, a UN program concocted to redistribute wealth. Avista has its own "Corporate Governance" model it follows which is another fabricated UN ruse. Now Idahoans will be dragged further into this obscene activity, along with Hydro One "green values". Ontario hydropower is generated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its employees receive a "portion of their pay in Hydro One stock as part of a new contract settlement." Avista customers will now be subsidizing those pension plans, another way to redistribute wealth per Agenda 21. Hydro One comes with massive financial problems, what better way to fix them than to redistribute the debt to Idahoans.
One frightening factor about this electrical integration is the interconnected electrical grid systems. All electricity in the western states could be completely obliterated by an attack, rather than one grid being destroyed while the remaining separate grids would be protected. Another concern is the Columbia River Treaty. While one agreement in the original Columbia River Treaty was Canada storing water for release to the United States for hydropower, now with Hydro One in control of U.S. dams, how will this influence the re-negotiations currently taking place, especially with their UN alliance? Do Idahoans have a voice in anything, or will we just continue being subjected to the influences and decisions by foreigners and the UN?
Avista customers might want to give consideration to filing an injunction. Surely there are potential harms that will come with Hydro One, especially financial, along with other factors that are clearly not in the public interest. Why should Idahoans pay for foreign infrastructure projects or pension plans? Are there no laws that protect our sovereignty? Does this deal not violate the very foundation of our Republic? The evidence is here, the DOE and UN intend to internationalize our electrical grids, it will be only a matter of time before we see more foreign takeovers of Idaho grids to fully achieve their agenda.
Patrick Wood has more information on electrical grid integration here, and fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has more information on NERC and smart meters here.
There has been, and what is now a very aggressive agenda, to take and control Idaho land. Idahoans may not realize the magnitude of individuals and organizations involved so this is an overview of some, but not all, to provide an understanding of the problem, and its depth. These organizations and individuals work in harmony with each other and some individuals traverse between groups providing direction on conservation issues. Currently, land in between protected areas is highly targeted for conservation. This can only be described as a coup d'état.
Western Governor's Association (WGA)
The WGA created Resolution 07-01 in 2007, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West, "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west.". The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) was created using GIS tools, then transferred to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Here is the result of their work, the Chat map.
Goal: Data Collection, creation of corridors, and conservation.
Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
WAFWA represents "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", including Canada. WAFWA is an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), however, IDFG is listed as a AFWA member with 13 employees on various committees. IDFG Director, Virgil Moore, was named AFWA President this year. AFWA, based in Washington D.C., "represents state agencies" on capital hill while its members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI).
Goal: Conservation of species, enacting federal legislation to enforce conservation.
Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP)
The BRP, created in 2014 by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups, and state fish and wildlife agencies." The BRP includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and is a conglomerate of lobbyists succeeding in in introducing legislation, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016 which requests 1.3 billion dollars for conservation. One goal is creating policy options to fund "conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species" via state SWAP plans and restructuring state fish and wildlife agencies. (BRP was renamed "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife"-AAFW).
Goal: Raise funds through corporations to support conservation efforts in states and through federal legislation, possibly influence how fish & wildlife agencies are structured, rather than keeping it as a state decision.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC)
Created by the Department of Interior and administered by USFWS, these are partnerships between NGOs, federal and state government agencies, universities, and conservation initiatives to collect data on species, habitat, and land which will then be evaluated for conservation through creation of corridors for connectivity, and other measures.
Goal: Identifying species and habitat for corridors which can be used to place large tracts of land into conservation for connectivity to other protected areas, convincing private land owners to place their land into conservation easements, buying land through NGOs and the federal government, erasing jurisdictional boundaries between counties, states, and countries, and creating a regional environmental governance.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP)
The LILP, UN NGO, integrates theory and practice for public policy decisions on land use. They were responsible for the idea to bring all conservationists together in one group, "a collective voice for advancing the theory and practice of large landscape conservation", called the Network for Large Landscape Conservation, then rebranded as the Network for Landscape Conservation. They also brought in LCCs, USFS, USGS, BLM and other federal agencies to enhance funding through grants. The LILP believes in regionalism, that jurisdictional boundaries, and your representation through elected officials, are irrelevant. LILP focuses on building a large landscape community of conservation practice. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is another organization that tries to influence the use of private property and whom "policy makers" listen to, rather than you.
Goal: Increase efforts to put all land into conservation for protection and connectivity, research land policy programs for public officials and others about the use of land, land regulation, and property rights, having a "more active role in the conversations that shape public policy decisions.", which also involves land trusts.
Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC)
The NLC includes individuals working across geographies, regardless of political boundaries, to conserve connected, ecological systems by partnering with multiple organizations and the federal government.
Goal: Conserving land for connectivity.
Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP)
CNREP is "known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land-use planning, and cross-boundary resource management.", including large landscape conservation strategic frameworks for policy and action.
Goal: Influence public policy on land issues.
Conservation Science Partners (CSP)
Research scientists in applied conservation science, collecting and developing new data for conservation practitioners, all to support conservation goals. Their partners include the federal government and several other sources cited in this article.
Goal: Producing science that supports all forms of conservation and organization objectives.
Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
CBI conducts conservation research and develops conservation tools, such as Data Basin, for collecting data that assists conservation agendas, and regional planning assessments to support conservation projects globally. Data collection includes protected areas, conservation easements, and high conservation value areas. Partners include foundations, the federal government, corporations, and universities. The DOI funded CBI to "assist in the strategic development and expansion of scientific information, analysis and support tools to benefit the LCC network and facilitate landscape conservation design." This tool is interoperable between LCCs. Core Data Basin information is free and also serves the HORI which is a land trust partnership for placement of private land into conservation.
Goal: Create tools for conservation, provide a data center where all conservation data can be stored and accessible to conservation groups and individuals for promotion of conservation.
HD, HOR, Y2Y, GYC, COC, FW, TNC, WS, HFLP, WCS, DOW, NWF
All of these "initiatives" and NGOs, many being UN NGOs, have common goals, putting as much private land as possible into conservation easements, buying private land to retain or sell to the government as a conservation easement, declaring areas needing protection for species or habitats, identifying corridors between protected land for eventual linkage and connectivity, engaging as many private land owners as possible to use conservation practices on their land, indoctrinating the young on believing their conservation is the only answer, creating conservation by design on land, expanding boundaries of already existing protected land such as national parks, and engaging county commissioners to integrate restrictive land use regulations into comprehensive plans. TNC is even bringing in corporations to fund their goals, starting with UN business partner J.P. Morgan. There are multiple overlaps of individuals between these groups with some players being prominent leaders such as Gary Tabor, Rob Ament, Michael Whitfield, Joel Berger, and Matthew McKinney.
Goal: Put all land into some form of conservation status with restrictive regulations on how land is used, expand protected land boundaries so wildlife has room to roam, procure as much land as possible.
USFWS, USFS, BLM, NPS, NRCS, USDA
The federal government partners with initiatives, organizations, and NGOs to accomplish conservation goals and regionalism. Each agency has a variety of programs for conservation. It is your tax dollar being used to fund these conservation groups. Eventually, all recreation and how you recreate will be "managed" for conservation and protection, as H.R. 3400, Sec. 305 describes.
Goal: Use taxpayer dollars to assist groups to achieve their goals of conservation across county, state, and country jurisdictional boundaries while failing to represent Americans as public servants through elected officials, or engage them with transparency.
Western Transportation Institute (WTI)
WTI conducts research on roads to assist with identifying core habitats, dispersal corridors, restoring connectivity, and highway mitigation methods, under the guise of road ecology.
Goal: Determine how your roads should be built and managed simultaneously with conservation groups.
Aside from these groups taking your tax dollar to support their objectives, there are also wealthy foundations that contribute to the effort. Wilburforce, Brainerd, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Turner (UN partner) are just a few foundations that fork over money for conservation groups.
Goal: Financially assist NGOs and initiatives in conservation objectives.
What is interesting about these groups is there are legal requirements not being followed. This Legal Framework For Cooperative Conservation document outlines some legal requirements. There are specific requirements for public involvement but these groups create their own support groups with the same ideology, then proclaim them as public involvement. Public engagement, those individuals who live in a particular area, are never involved while engagement with state and federal agencies are hidden as well. Specific requirements for open and transparent disclosure are also required, but this rarely happens. As stated in the document, "These resources belong to the public", not the conservation groups. But that is what they believe, they own the land, it is theirs to manipulate, and hide what they are doing.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended "to ensure that agency officials make policy decisions in open, deliberative processes rather than behind closed doors with undue influence by select stakeholders". However, this is exactly what has been happening, activity and decisions are being made with select groups and hidden from the public. In order to delegate authority to new entities, "Congress must specify the general policies under which the group operates and the restrictions limiting the group’s authority." LCCs, initiatives, and NGOs operate without any congressional policy, create their own policies while projecting an image of authority, are self directed with no oversight, while the public is not informed about the depth of involvement by so many groups, their intention to collect and share data for decisions on how we will live or use our land, or that the federal government is funding it with our tax dollar. Had we been informed would we agree to this egregious agenda? Would there be agreement to the end goal of placing the majority of Idaho into conservation with restricted use?
Our Constitution is based on separation of powers. Therefore, federal "agencies may not “subdelegate” this authority to outside parties." But the federal and state agencies are subdelegating decisions to these conservation groups, allowing them to integrate their objectives into governmental decisions, and influencing our elected officials. Even worse, now there is a growing movement towards private sector management of our public land, which Secretary Zinke supports and is implementing with a recreation advisory committee. Is this a sub-delegation of our public land to outside interests? Will there be corporate influence over how the land is used which overrides the public whose tax dollars pay for public land use?
There is also the audacity of the USFS being allowed to subjugate private land to public use for access to public land. The Fifth amendment clearly states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Matthew McKinney (CNREP), believes in regionalism, and has his own ideas about land, co-authoring an article, "The Emerging Role of Network Governance in Large Landscape Conservation". He and his coauthor claim, "No single entity has the authority to address these types of cross-boundary issues, resulting in gaps in governance and a corresponding need to create formal and informal ways work more effectively across administrative boundaries, land ownerships, and political jurisdictions." Network governance is intended to "supplement", not replace other forms of governance. Supplement is a broad term but most likely it is meant to be an insertion of his and other groups ideology for conservation and regionalism. By his own admission, "civic entrepreneurs from the public and private sectors, NGOs, and universities have catalyzed a variety of innovative governance arrangements". Has he ever heard of the Constitution, the foundation of which cannot be exchanged for other "governance arrangements? Mr. McKinney has written about "Global Guidance on Transboundary Conservation" for the IUCN and how to initiate it.
As a Global Transboundary Conservation Network member, and World Commission on Protected Areas ( WCPA) member, Mr. McKinney has deep ties with the UN, especially regarding protected areas, bringing UN ideology into decisions regarding Idaho through his many connections. All of his activities are moving towards the UN Environmental Governance strategy, which the University of Montana might teach in their model UN program where Mr. McKinney works.
This CSP graphic gives a visual picture of just a few who are involved in controlling our land use.
The majority of these groups and individuals are scientists, technocrats, implementing their agenda via technocracy, a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology, or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts. Most associate with the UN and are actively implementing Agenda 2030 SD target Goals 15 and 17.17.
Federal and state employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through laws. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been entrusted to other states, countries, corporations, organizations, and NGOs. Unless we come together, organize direct opposition to them, land use for "future generations" will be living with these individuals and groups deciding how land is used. We cannot let them continue taking control of Idaho land.
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.
This is the last of a six part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Part four exposed those who are involved in the effort to redesign Island Park. How Island Park residents are being excluded as a primary voice in decisions was exposed in part five. Now that the full truth is out, where does Island Park go from here?
So now the truth is out. There are substantial organizations and foundations that work with federal agencies to promote connecting large landscapes into conservation with eventual regulatory requirements that will dictate how the Island Park community will be designed and how a property owners will be required to design their own land, or even use it. This is a covert agenda by outside groups, NGOs, and both state and federal governments to alter Island Park into some man made design, making it look like a zoo where wildlife can be "enjoyed" rather than letting her exist naturally as she has for generations.
The starting point is wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), the Elk who cross US 20 two times a year on their migratory path. Although Targhee Pass is identified as a primary area of crossing and need for an overpass, the Elk actually make their crossing a few miles south of Bighorn Hills. This would require fencing which would force the Elk to alter their natural path.
No Elk, or any other wildlife, should die on their journey. The WVC numbers vary depending on which source is cited. All studies were conducted for the specific outcome of overpasses and connectivity while downplaying other alternatives, or even consideration for other possible options. Has the number of WVC, or even the number of Elk deaths increased in 50 years? Those numbers are never mentioned. These initiatives, NGOs, and government agencies with a massive agenda have decided to make the Elk an issue, with their bias, to implement their predetermined solutions.
Those who are part of this agenda, these initiatives, will try to dissuade us from accepting the truth, controlling and manipulating the dialogue on compassion for wildlife and the "threat of human-wildlife conflict", while continuing to hide what is coming next and who is involved. That "conflict" is a fabrication from their fantasies. The perception that there is no compassion for the Elk will be promoted. They will try to marginalize folks who do not support their agenda and who are willing to listen to the truth. A negative impression of those who oppose the initiative will be painted as uncaring and disrespectful towards the beautiful animals we all care about. None of this is true. This type of rhetoric is only to distract from the truth, while defining you as the enemy. The larger discussion about private property restrictions and impacts, fencing, acquisition, multiple use reductions, other wildlife and endangered species, the bison and brucellosis, and the connectivity agenda have all been avoided and hidden, and will continue to be avoided if allowed by Island Park guardians. Elk are loved just as much by those who seek the truth. Perhaps their love for the Elk is greater for not wanting to change their natural habitat, forcing them into a man made environment. There is no reason to be ashamed for wanting to protect them and Island Park.
Our Founding Fathers believed property rights exemplified the foundation of liberty.
“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams
“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay (First Chief Justice)
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
And others believed this as well.
“The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” Arthur Lee
“Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” Calvin Coolidge
Property rights are the most precious gift of our Republic. We are not a democracy where the mob rules, we are a Republic and a nation whose foundation is based on laws, laws that protect our rights. Because we are not a democracy, and in spite of what they may believe, the masses of individuals, groups, government agencies, and wealth behind this agenda do not rule. Fabricated changes to boundaries and rules about land by those with ideological beliefs must never be accepted.
It seems most conflicts in the world are centered around the theft of property, the taking of land from others, often leading to battle. The theft occurring now is different in that there is no battle, but the war is the same.
Island Park is sovereign, independent from Yellowstone Park, with clear jurisdictional boundaries, not only at a city and county level, but at the state level. These boundaries must be protected and defended.
Island Park citizens must come together. They must become knowledgeable about NGOs, federal and state laws, and understand their rights. Understanding the hidden agenda is critical to understanding what rights will be taken from them. Citizens must ask questions, demand answers, and stand up for their rights, both as an Island Park resident and private property owner.
Others must be educated on the issues and brought on board with regular meetings that keep everyone current on the issues. When not in residency everyone should stay connected through all means of social media, emails, and other methods, sharing information as it becomes available. Move the discussion beyond compassion for the Elk to the real issues being hidden.
Coalition groups or advisory committees should be created to insist that your voice is the primary voice that must be heard with NGOs and other initiatives taking a back seat. Let them know their agenda is not welcome.
A broader discussion in solving WVC is needed with other solutions brought forth, including alternatives that haven't been given any consideration. And there are others. If the technocrats say an alternative is not beneficial, research it, find out what other areas have tried them, and the results. Come up with new ideas and solutions and present them to ITD. Keep the pressure on them to listen. Land alteration and forcing a change in the migration path of Elk are not the only answers to protect them.
As the guardians of Island Park, to those who are most bonded and connected to the land, stand up for her right to exist naturally, and your rights. Become involved and never allow anyone to change it into an artificially designed, faux zoo landscape. Appreciation for Island Park comes from how it has always existed.
This is the fifth of a six part series. The reader is highly encouraged to go to these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
It is critical to understand the massive number of organizations who are involved in this connectivity agenda and who align with government agencies to advance it.
In 2010, the Obama administration issued a memorandum, creating the America's Great Outdoors Initiative without any federal legislation, and assigning eight federal agencies to implement it. Two objectives were the creation of "corridors and connectivity", and advancing those "priorities through public private partnerships". A DOI order created 22 large landscape cooperatives across the U.S. with Island Park sitting in the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC). These cooperatives were tasked with coordinating all landscape conservation groups, including partnering federal agencies, placing land into conservation, and connecting them into large landscapes. There are 56 landscape initiatives that belong to the GNLCC including Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Greater Yellowstone Coalition Committee (GYCC), Western Governors Association (WGA), and multiple land trusts. Here is their Steering Committee.
But there are other large landscape conservation groups as well.
Gary Tabor is the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLN), co-founded the Y2Y Conservation Initiative, the Roundtable of the COC, and co-designed the Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative. The Conservation Corridor, an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) program, facilitates wildlife corridor and ecological connectivity conservation, of which Mr. Tabor is the regional leader Vice Chair. As recent as 2016, Mr. Tabor was participating with the IUCN for Areas of Connectivity Conservation. Here is the CLLN network of partners.
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), "is the collective of the 22 LCCs collectively", whose council consists of the BLM, USFS, NPS, USFWS, among others; NGOs NatureServe and TNC; four international participants; and the CLLC.
The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC), was created by the University of Montana and Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (LILP). Their mission is "helping people work effectively across boundaries to...protect...or connect natural systems at the large landscape scale...", and support an "enduring system of protected and connected natural systems at the large landscape scale." Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield are on the coordinating committee. The LILP has a Large Landscape Conservation Strategic Framework for Policy and Action.
The WGA plans to launch a pilot project for wildlife mapping, identifying areas where development can occur with minimal impacts to wildlife, with Island Park being one project areas. Phase 1 includes inventorying species, habitat, unfragmented landscapes, protected habitats, and geographic features while evaluating connectivity tools and models in cooperation with NatureServe and WCS ongoing efforts to formulate connectivity best management practices. The project promises to contact all relevant stakeholders within the pilot area at the initiation of the project, including but not be limited to: Y2Y, WCS, and TNC. The project intends to hold at least 2 "stakeholder" meetings, with Island Park being one of those communities. By the end of Phase 1 they plan on having a "Completed connectivity/linkage plan identifying steps, tools, and outcomes for producing a connectivity data layer for the entire ID‐MT divide project area." The NGOs and HD must be thrilled. No start date was listed.
The Brainerd Foundation funds the NGOs Earthjustice, TNC, SC, WS, and NWF; COC, GYC, Y2Y, FW, and HOR initiatives; the Henry's Fork Foundation and Sonoran Institute. The Sonoran Institute partners with the TNC, WS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Wilburforce Foundation (WCS partner) funds Y2Y, and the Turner foundation also funds these agendas.
As one can see, there are a substantial number of groups involved in this connectivity agenda, as well as money pouring in from wealthy individuals with the same ideology, and your tax dollar. But where are the voices whose heritage is bonded and connected to Island Park? Their voice, with first rights in importance, has been left out.
The US 20 Corridor has a website specific to the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment (EA) phase of the project. It states ITD, following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, is initiating an EA to evaluate risks, benefits, opportunities and costs associated with reconstruction of Targhee Pass, with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead agency.
ITD has been studying the US 20 transportation corridor for 13 years, working with IDFG and the Henry's Fork Legacy Project (HFLP), assessing its condition, and identifying necessary improvements. Three studies were conducted during that time. 2014 (Cramer) - Methodology for Prioritizing Appropriate Mitigation Actions to Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions on Idaho Highways; 2014 (Seidler) - US 20 Island Park Wildlife Collision Study - an examination of Road Ecology in the Island Park Caldera: Elk and Moose migration across US Highway 20 - Final Report; and 2016 (Cramer) - Safety Solutions for Wildlife Vehicle Collisions on Idaho’s US 20 and SH 87. Technocrats and individuals from outside the area have the lead voice here.
According to the website it was also during this time "one-on-one conversations with local agencies, municipalities, tribes and other key stakeholders" also took place, which were used for the Targhee Pass Environmental Study. ITD states comments on wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC) were "received in the scoping phase" of the study. Aside from the IDFG, HFLP, and technocrats, who? What Tribes?
The website states the NEPA process begins when a federal agency develops a proposal to take a major federal action or (as in this case) when federal funds would be utilized to implement a project. Federal funds were approved for this project in October, 2016. So the NEPA process was started prior to the funding? What does federal law say?
§ 23 CFR 771.119 Environmental Assessments, § 771.111 Early coordination, Public involvement, and Project Development, and § 450.210 Interested parties, Public involvement, and Consultation, all require public involvement for transportation planning and actions requiring an EA. This is accomplished through an early coordination process and is incorporated into the EA which should be available for public inspection. One or more public hearings...at a convenient time and place for any...project which requires significant amounts of right-of-way, substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting roadways...or has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property are also part of the law. The state is also required to develop and use a documented public involvement process that provides opportunities for public review and comment at key decision points. What opportunity for involvement were citizens granted during the studies, or even from the beginning 13 years ago?
§ 23 USC 128: Public Hearings states, "Any State transportation department which submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving the by passing of or, going through any city, town, or village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and has considered the economic and social effects of such a location, its impact on the environment, and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community." The ITD excluded all of this. Were public hearings held regarding proposed actions on the corridor, during a time when all were in residency?
The website claims "The first step in the environmental assessment process is called scoping. This is an opportunity for the community to help identify issues and concerns specific to the study corridor." According to their timeline a study initiation and stakeholder assessment occurred in October, 2016. One public meeting was held in December with comments incorporated to refine alternatives and impact assessment methods in January, 2017. The subsequent April meeting was cancelled. The ITD Corridor Planning Guidebook mandates public participation and county official involvement at the beginning of any proposed project. Does it sound like the public and county criteria were met? How could it be the initiation of the project when studies had already been conducted, deals were made with other agencies, and only select groups involved?
Community based organizations are also listed as important groups for outreach. Aside from the HFLP, the majority who don't live in Island Park, what other community based organizations were contacted? Island Park residents should give serious consideration to creating a Civic Advisory Committee for transportation decisions, separate from NGOs and select groups, for comprehensive perspectives. More importantly, this project should be started over and conducted according to the law.
The ITD has clearly failed in meeting the public involvement requirement during the transportation planning. Open houses were scheduled during months when the majority were not in residence, and when the most difficult winter road conditions existed. A public hearing was never offered during a time when all were in residency. In addition, required socio-economic factors were clearly not included in the proposal or in any of the studies. Is it possible neither the NGOs or the ITD wanted the truth to come out?
If this Targhee Pass project moves forward, Island Park better prepare for possible land use planning changes that will follow. As previously mentioned, Northwest Property Owners Association (NWPOA) went through this nightmare but successfully stopped it. Their local NGO attempted to incorporate restrictive regulations into their county comprehensive plan which included: requirements for using qualified design professionals; assessments and studies for professional design and best management practices; zoning restrictions; impact fees; development moratoriums; growth limits; and incorporation of state and/or federal laws. ScienceDirect has an excellent article, Land use planning: A potential force for retaining habitat connectivity in the GYE and Beyond, that is full of the scams taking place now, including the belief that "...counties could exert more power in controlling private land development." Defenders of Wildlife promote using State Wildlife Action Plans to link conservation with land use planning. Both are worth reading to understand future agendas if this connectivity project moves forward.
Conclusion in Part 6.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!