Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well. Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN. Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use. The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals. Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call "corporate governance". One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed. The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America. Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based. Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft. Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies. Wilderness According to the Idaho BLM site they control 12 million acres of land in Idaho, with 4,795,820 acres devoted to wilderness designation according to the Wilderness connect. BLM wilderness area is "an area of public lands that Congress has designated for BLM to manage as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964." Here is a map of BLM wilderness in Idaho. For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM. The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies believe grazing has been harmful to the land, which the BLM claims has lessened since they took control of it. Their solutions have been to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use. Bullcocky, the purpose is to remove humans from their land and take over the resources. These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammond ranch conflicts. For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land. Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video. Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency. Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through "Resource Management Plans". As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan. Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements! The BLM is also obligated to "protect endangered species" such as the sage grouse. These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilerness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the ruse is really to ban you from using the land. It is well understood that wilderness and other "protected" areas are a focus of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a UN NGO and UNEP partner. As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). The IUCN identifies national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves and protected areas. But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes. "In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre..." the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, for ..."inclusion into UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre's World Database for Protected Areas" and "World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes linking the multiple parcels of a single protected area in PAD-US and connecting them to the Global Community." Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land. Anticipate more species needing protection from you. Desertification will be the focus of Part 2.
1 Comment
Desertification
Desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word. Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found. The closest is the word desert, defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy. One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda. As noted in the Savory video in Part 1, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back. As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction. Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use? Shouldn't this have lessened the problem? As a United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) partner, the Department of Interior (DOI) created the The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI). One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program. And for all the BLM's alleged protection in the GBRI, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land. Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it. Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection. Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems". "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task. Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000. According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification. By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them. A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...food security, water scarcity, biodiversity, forest", and of course "gender", whatever that means. The UNCCD is also very interested in renewable energy. Solar and wind are two forms of renewable energy and all of that land with desertification problems is needed for renewable energy production, but there cannot be humans in the way. Keep the renewable energy in mind. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries. The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD. One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8). The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations. That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything. In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed. Ecosystems
Desertification isn't enough however, ecosystems are also a a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use. Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but originally the BLM defined it as ecosystem management which "...recognizes that natural systems and processes must be sustained in order to meet the social and economic needs of future generations." Their goal was to "...to conserve, restore, and maintain ecological integrity, productivity and biological diversity of public lands." What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present. The only solution is to keep humans away. Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection. The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals." Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way? And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural (UNESCO) thinks all wetlands are being destroyed while the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) thinks wetlands should be honored in a World Wetlands Day. UNEP believes wetlands are needed for the economy which makes sense as the UN goal is transforming us to a resource based, or green, economy. The UN Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 lists 4 goals: drivers of wetland degradation, conserving the Ramsar network, wise use of wetlands, and enhancing implementation, with 19 targets while contributinge to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. As a partner with this convention, the United States is implementing these goals. In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources." Water is what this about, all of these organizations want control of all water, and what better way than to encompass all water through ecosystems. The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for more conservation and preservation of wetlands. According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment. Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states. Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified. Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working." Oh yeah? How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with their habitat because of your strategies? May the restrictions for human use end. But federal government ecosystem "protection" will most likely expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private property. The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010. As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species. As a IUCN partner the DOI USFWS and other federal agencies follow these lists. Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030. "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...". Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators. Resource theft and conclusion in Part 4. Resource Theft
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification". And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them. GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is captured, stored, manipulated, analyzed, and managed. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN. Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM managed lands include wind, solar, oil, gas, coal, mining, helium, and geothermal projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. With the UN goal to take as much land away from us for its resources, while transforming us to a "green" economy, the BLM is assisting with this goal. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy. Wind Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects. At this point Idaho does not require utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon. The BLM has contracted with Iberdrola. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects. The BLM has ballooned so much they need an outside source, Ameresco, to manage their finances. According to their website, the BLM "generated $75 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2016." What are they, a business or a government agency that is suppose to manage land? While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. There are negative aspects to wind energy such as it being unreliable and very expensive. Solar Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones. Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLM ploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands. Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including nearing default on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners like Morgan Stanley so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop. According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site "...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.1 billion, that should hasten the job. Uranium One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying. Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. Page 4B of this USGS map shows "mineral resource potential" in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers. This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass Energy Projects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on creating renewable energy zones with the Department of Energy. In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and re-mediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way. Renewable Energy Credits This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21. Conclusion Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation. Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now. Congratulations to the city officials of these towns! They have successfully sold out their citizens to both Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
As previously posted, Coeur d'Alene has been invaded by the United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO) to brainwash the city officials on the Utopian idea that the finest way to live is by cramming people into small living quarters above workplaces to save the environment, keep educational systems contained within that area to provide for corporate workforce needs, lovingly allocate humans equal share of living space and utilities, provide a unrealistic safe environment, eliminate distinctions between individuals as all will be equally treated, and allow use of a "green" space where they can go picnic. What a joke. Well, the movement is on in other Idaho cities. While Agenda 21, Chapter 7 entitled Human Settlements, covers the essence of cramming humans into dense cities living atop businesses with small green spaces used for their outdoor enjoyment while getting about by walking and biking or using mass transportation, Agenda 2030 takes it farther. Agenda 2030 includes the fascist concept of developing human capital. Now while there are several different definitions of fascism, it could be said that these cities fall into the definition of "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition". In this case, the dictator being the UN with their UN corporate partnerships, public-private partnerships so overwhelmingly touted by our government at every level, and the violent suppression of the opposition as we have seen in cases around the northwest. Although Agenda 2030 claims there are 17 sustainable goals, #18 clearly states there are 169 associated "targets". Now Agenda 2030 doesn't specifically state clusters but it is clearly laid out in various goals. Clusters are regional developments with concentrations of related industries and where humans are crammed to serve the needs of the industries. In addition to the resources needed for everyday life the cluster also focuses on education programs that train future workers for servicing the local industry. Page 89 in this UN Global Sustainable Development Report defines one emerging theme for the 2010's as public private coordination and regional/cities cluster development while page 95 outlines the need for "...educational policies supporting industrial transformation and inclusive growth through training and capacity building (see Section 5.3.3) are critical to accommodating the rising demand for skilled labour." This is all part of the economic development scam, bringing various businesses to the cities and then servicing those businesses with a local workforce while at the same time creating a regional system of corporate control, aka fascism. That is just a basic overview so it is easier to see how the UN is leading these Idaho cities by the nose. The UN has infiltrated down to the most local governments via Agenda 21 which puts the necessary structure into place before Agenda 2030 was even formally adopted. Twin Falls Twin Falls adopted their plan, Twin Falls Vision 2030, in 2009. Going through this document residential cluster development is identified on page x and xx, describing it as a wide range of housing types and mixed use. Starting with pages of concern about population growth on 1-10, it leads to the justification for condensing Twin Falls citizens, right in line with Agenda 2030. On page 2-20 this plan outlines the need for high density housing with inclusion of local businesses located for citizens wanting a "unified environment". Did Twin Falls citizens request that? Page 2-26 describes clusters for "...more compact forms of residential growth...and cluster development...", but it is page 3-7 that provides a true graphic of cluster development. Cluster promotion continues from page 3-19 to 3-22 with a nice graphic on 3-18 that shows just how many more citizens will be crammed into a small space, that is, 220 lots on 1/8 acre versus the current 148 lots, that extra land available for having a picnic. Now the Twin Falls plan falls short in their education and finance development in relation to Agenda 2030, that is, putting those institutions inside the clusters. But as the city planners and UN NGOs are indoctrinated you will see it coming as a necessity to educate the citizens for future corporate workforce development within the cluster. Watch for updates to the plan that will be similar to McCall. However, Twin Falls did come up with a comprehensive plan update which permanently "...establishes a water service boundary that sets limits on land use and development until in-fill parcels are developed...". Twin Falls hired an out of state firm, Landmark Design, which is guided by the UN NGO, United States Green Building Council (USGBC) rating program SITES, to create the boundary and design the landscape. This rating program was created in part by the American Society of Landscape Architects, UN NGO. Landmark Design also promotes LEED, a USGBC certification for green buildings. So nice to know another Idaho city has engaged the UN into its city design. Meridian Now that Boise continues to actively transform into a human settlement, it is only natural that next door neighbor Meridian join the bandwagon. KTVB had a glowing report on the "mixed use" development proposal coming to Meridian with hopes of boosting the economy. The term mixed use basically means businesses on the ground floor with small apartments on top and walking to work with mass transportation available for other needs. There would be no need for anyone to live outside this small cluster on 300 acres. How many people can be crammed into that space? This Meridian plan was actually adopted in 2007. A view of this picturesque community can be found on page 3-2. Pg 3-5 identifies the land use areas as residential, mixed use, employment, and special areas. There is also a nice picture of low and medium density housing. Medium density is described as multi-family but it is nothing more than what used to be called a fourplex, that is four apartments in one building. This document claims there should be six dwellings per acre. On page 3-6 you have pictures of medium high density buildings which is nothing more than apartment buildings, not looking much different than the high density buildings on page 3-7. One very important item left out is that you will be paying a high price for rent as high density housing drives costs up. But more importantly, your wasted rental dollars will stop your gaining in personal wealth through private property investment, one huge UN goal being the elimination of private property as it is viewed as wealth (page 28 D. Land Preamble). Employment is covered on page 3-9 and describes this employment cluster in supporting more than 30,000 employees. Wow, that many people working on 300 acres, 100 humans per acre. Sounds a bit crowded. But not to fear, page 3-13 shows the happy serfs walking along a predefined path for their outdoor pleasure while 3-18 has the main routes of transportation for you to get around, and with complete streets on page 3-19 one will notice restricted car use. Second Agenda 21 goal, the loss of freedom of movement, there will be no way for you to escape this cluster freely with a vehicle, at least it will be much harder. This should be frightening for everyone. Without going into much further detail on what this plan offers, one has to stop and think how their whole lifestyle will be defined, and freedom taken. You will no longer have freedom to decide how you live, how much space you will live or play in, how you design your living space, where you can roam, what stores you will go to, or your freedom to go other places. All of it will be decided by the UN through continued filtering this indoctrination down via city planners and NGOs. Because this plan was created in 2007 the Agenda 2030 expansion isn't included. What is left out is the educational and financial institutions for workforce development. But as the plan goes forward this will be added and most likely there will be more UN NGO involvement as it was in Coeur d'Alene. If you live in Meridian, beware. McCall Perhaps this is the most devastating plan of the lot, deserving the most attention. Several nefarious individuals, some elected officials, and the UN NGO Chamber of Commerce, (pg 2) have colluded together making the whole Valley County a "region". Both Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 promote regional development which in turn creates a hidden body of individuals who make decisions about where and how you live, and who are not elected by citizens. This plan is called the Western Central Mountains, Idaho's Adventure Corridor, Economic Development Strategy. Why bother with this name, at least other cities were honest about naming their plans after Agenda 2030. To help the reader understand how this aligns with Agenda 2030, a summary of the plan's goals will follow with the relevant Agenda 2030 goal. The Agenda 2030 document can be referenced for more information. Also, all page numbers refer to the adobe page number rather than the plan page itself. Starting on page 8, the area has been renamed as a region (goal 9.1,11.a). rather than Valley County with unique individual towns. This plan focuses on six areas including jobs, housing, transportation, education/culture and recreation, health/well being, and regional communication (pg 20), all for "economic growth". Agenda 2030 9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all 11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning While the beginning of the plan goes into detail justifying the reason for its own self creation, the condensed version is used for purposes of this post. Also, Agenda 2030 refers often to developing countries. The United States is considered a developed country but the same agenda applies to us. Western Central Mountains Idaho's Adventure Corridor Economic Development Strategy Jobs (pg 62) This particular section focuses on forestry and mining, however employment is scattered throughout each section, called workforce development. One important issue to remember is that the goal is developing areas to serve corporate and industry needs, interchangeable terms, touting it as "economic development". There is a section on cluster development that warrants mentioning starting on page 36. This section discusses the "industrial" cluster and defines it as "...concentrations of related businesses...that arise out of various types of industries...advantages to industry clusters include their ability to...catalyze new business development; accelerate innovation and technology (goals 8.2, 8.3); and increase access to labor, financing, and support services. When a cluster forms in a rural area, it presents an opportunity to strengthen the regional economic base, sustain a skilled labor force (goal 8.5), and improve the quality of life." Forestry is one focus (goals 15.1, 15.2, 15.b), and is a major Idaho resource controlled by the UN (See August 2015 archives). This clearly spells out the intent of this plan, to develop clusters that will train the workforce for the industry or business that is brought in. Back on page 62 Jobs 1 & 5 encourage funding opportunities, promoting job creation, and promoting spin off industries (goal 8.3, 8.10, 9.3.). Agenda 2030 8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors 8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services 8.5 ...achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people... 8.10 Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all 9.3 Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises...to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets 15.1 ...ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests...in line with obligations under international agreements 15.2 ...promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests... 15.b Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management... Energy (pg 63) The intent here is to explore renewable energy sources for the economy and promote technological innovation (goal 7.a). Agenda 2030 7.a ...enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology Leisure and Hospitality (pg 64) This is a second identified cluster on page 37, with subclusters for accommodations, visitor attractions, and cultural/educational entertainment. Leisure and hospitality is the synonym for Agenda 2030 tourism (goals 8.9, 12.b). The goal is having the area remain a tourism industry with year round employment on a regional scale, not to the enhancement of each individual community. Agenda 2030 8.9 By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products 12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products Agriculture (pg 65-66) Enter the Valley County Economic Development Council (VCEDC). Did the citizens of Valley County elect these people? Well they have been busy "broadening" workforce development and have developed a "strategic plan" to network businesses and education, promote local food production (goal 2.3, 2.4), strengthen telecommunications (goal 9.c, 17.8), attract businesses (goal 8.3), promote affordable housing and transportation (goal 11.1, 11.2), and of course develop energy (goal 7). Bear in mind, if you have any concerns or complaints about any part of this plan, you are out of luck. They don't have to answer to you, you didn't elect them and they do not represent you. Regions and associated councils are created to undermine America's government structure, that is why the UN wants regional development. The Western Central Mountains plan will support secondary education in developing a curriculum for agricultural careers. Forget that family, who for generations, have passed their knowledge of farming to their children and grandchildren, and most likely know more than any teacher or professor whose knowledge comes out of a book. Getting back to Idaho's Adventure Corridor agriculture goal, the mission is to increase sales which "...could translate into many new jobs and provide the community with healthier food options."(goal 2.1, 2.3., 2.4), while using universities to teach farmers how to improve production (goal 2.a). Bet those farmers weren't aware they didn't know what they were doing for the last 100 years, even though they produced food. Why get universities involved? There are two reasons. Higher education has been hijacked by the UN, indoctrinating students for years on sustainable development, aka Agenda 21. Secondly, it is the UN's intent to make it impossible for local farmers to stay in business by burdening them with expensive requirements and regulations for "sustainable" food production. In turn, the farmer will be forced to leave his land and agribusinesses will take over. Agenda 2030 2.1 ...end hunger and ensure access by all people...to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round 2.3 ...double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers...family farmers...through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment 2.4 ...ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality 2.a Increase investment...in rural infrastructure...to enhance agricultural productive capacity... Health Services (pg 67) In spite of a fairly healthy population (pg 54-55), expanding health care services for job growth and better access is seen as a necessity, including the need for new technologies (goal 3.8, 3.c), and "housing" that "attracts" medical staff. Do medical professionals live in a different type of house? Another interesting goal, "Attract healthcare incubators to research and develop innovative medical technologies." What the heck is a healthcare incubator? It only makes sense, if you are going to have a strong workforce you need to keep them healthy for continued productivity. Agenda 2030 3.8 Achieve universal health coverage...access to quality essential health-care services... 3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce... Workforce Education (pg 68) In spite of a well educated populace (pg 47-48), this plan calls for post-secondary accredited programs in the region because of the importance "...of human capital...". The more they educate you, the more productive you will be for them. It is rather stunning, this plan openly admits intent, "...realigning our secondary and postsecondary education with industry needs" and "curriculum alignment" (goal 4.3, 4.3). How brazen is this statement, "Linking industries with educators is critical to ensuring a competency-based education for current and future businesses." Do the people who create these plans ever read what they are doing? Do they not recognize how fascist, marxist, or communistic this looks? Reemphasized, "stronger partnerships must be forged among educators, industries and employers". They will decide your child's future. Why, even teaching sustainable forestry (goal 4.7, 15.2) is right out of Agenda 21, Chapter 11, while increasing professional health certifications meets Agenda 2030 (goal 3.c.). Your child's future will be determined by this plan through manipulation of the education system and corporate demands. Agenda 2030 3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce... 4.1 ...ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes 4.4 ...substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship 4.7 ...ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development 15.2 ...promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally Housing, Transportation Infrastructure (pg 71-75) Once again we get to the housing (pg 40) and this plan is right in line with "diversified housing", but more striking is its notation that multifamily housing is needed for "serving workforce housing needs" with a specific mention to "workforce housing development" on page 42 (goal 11.1). Will there never be a family home again, will it all be nothing more than a place to house workers? What is this, a concentration camp in Germany? Beware, these units are small, they are only meant to accommodate a few people which in turn is a way to encourage smaller families. Indirect population reduction and control. Touting the creation of walking and biking pathways on page 44, it is reassuring to know residents are willing to take that mode of transportation getting to work during the winter months in the mountains. One quick note about Objective 1 - Promote commerce through improved regional connectivity (pg 75). In each of these plans there are references to transportation corridors which are major thoroughfares through the clusters. These are needed for transportation of goods and commerce from the industries (goal 11a) between the regions, and which will require better internet access through technology (pg 57), (goal 9.c, 17.7). Agenda 2030 9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet... 11.1 ...ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing... 11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning 17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed Educational, Cultural, and Recreational Opportunities (pg 76-81) Even though Valley County, now known as West Central Mountains, currently has a "very educated population" (pg 47), the goal is now educating a workforce for the region with business partnerships (goal 4.2, 4.3, .4.4, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6). Businesses will be encouraged to develop "on-site prekindergarten school programs", then overwhelming kids with "dual enrollment" for high school students to obtain college credits getting them to work sooner, and have businesses develop internship programs exposing kids to their future work environment and expectations. How limited will the kid be, given only an opportunity for exposure to the industries in the cluster? Will they ever be given the chance to explore other options, or maybe even be free to think about it over the years before deciding what they want to do? What if a girl just wants to be a wife and mom, will that be allowed? For recreation the goal is expanding parks and "green space" with future jobs created through cultural promotion (goal 12.b). Agenda 2030 4.2 ...ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education... 4.3 ...ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university 4.4 ...substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship 8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services 8.5 ...achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people... 8.6 ...substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training 11.7 ...provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces... 12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products Health and Wellbeing (pg 81-83) This aggressive regional plan calls for universal health care (goal 3.8), expanded health infrastructure, access to healthy food, and promoting healthy lifestyles. It defines a healthy lifestyle as "...a critical factor to economic growth as it improves life balance and work-force productivity" ..."starting at an early age". Therefore, it includes public private partnerships and expanding K-12 programs that focus on healthy living and exercise by connecting the program to recreation. It is clear that if they need a workforce, it is necessary to keep that workforce healthy for serving the industries. Agenda 2030 2.1 ...end hunger and ensure access by all people...to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round 3.8 Achieve universal health coverage...access to quality essential health-care services... 17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships Regional Communication (pg 84-85) If a county with individual towns is redefined into a region then transparency is needed to help in understanding that new identity. The plan includes transparency to, "obtain community buy-in" and promote their "regional identity". Sending out newsletters to the unsuspecting citizens with information that is fluffed with the glories of the changes to come and creating a website that nobody will look at should suffice for the deceit (9.c, 16.6, 16.10). And what better form of deceit than marketing the West Central Mountains as one destination even though it is likely the majority of Valley County citizens have no idea what is being done to them. Agenda 2030 9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications technology... 16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels 16.10 Ensure public access to information... Conclusion If there is any question or disagreement that this is connected to the UN, this UN Habitat document, Urban Patterns for a Green Economy - Leveraging Density, is practically verbatim with every plan. The most relevant chapter is titled Compact City from pages 28-67, going into exact detail with diagrams very similar to those shown in the above plans. It also mentions using city planners and the governments to design what should be termed "public housing projects" and not compact cities, and even clustering, "...green economic development can be encouraged through the clustering of industries..." on page 9. It is no coincidence that two of the most resource rich areas of Idaho have been targeted, Coeur d'Alene and McCall, since the UN has full control of forests and have successfully manipulated Tribes into thinking they are having their land rightfully returned to them. McCall, do you see the connection? Hey VECDC, are you ok with selling the Valley County residents out to the UN? Are any of you Americans, have you ever heard of the Constitution? Do any of you understand that you are engaging in an agenda from an entity outside of the U.S. government, that you are not representing those who elected you, and that you are subjecting Americans to an agenda by a foreign body of despots? McCall and the remaining Valley County cities are in grave danger with Twin Falls not far behind. Meridian has already been lost to the Boise movement. How many other Idaho cities have been taken over? Whichever town you live in find out. Let your elected officials know that these city designs are unacceptable and if they won't listen consider a recall election. Protect Idaho. Preface
Of all the subjects and issues presented on this website there have been none which match the level of UN and federal government corruption and fraud than the exploitation of Tribes and attacks on private property. Understanding Tribal History & Federal Government Relations It is well known that the United Nations (UN) uses partnerships with professional organizations, businesses, governments, and non-profit groups to advance their agenda and ideology. But the UN is using another group, Tribes. Through the UN and federal government cartel for Sustainable Development (SD), aka Agenda 21 implementation, Tribes are being used to confiscate more resources, land, and private property. Tribal issues regarding land and water in the U.S. are extremely complex, involving multiple case decisions, Acts, settlements, and federal laws. The U.S. has had a troubled relationship with Native American Tribes from the beginning with malfeasance, and all that it implies, by the federal government, but never at the level that exists today. A review of that history is necessary to understand the current Tribal disputes regarding land and water, and how the federal government is using that history against Americans for UN agenda gains. Following are the more significant past laws that affect current decisions regarding Tribal land. In 1452, forty years prior to Columbus landing on this new land, "...the Dum Diversas Bull, a papal bull (aka an edict), was issued by Pope Nicholas V, granting the blessing to "capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property." In 1493, one year after Columbus discovered this new land, Pope Alexander VI’s papal bull issued the Inter Caetera which granted the same to Spain. These declarations came to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine's foundation was the ability to take land, private property, and rights from non-Christian inhabitants in newly discovered land. The UN uses these 522 year old papal bulls as a basis for the initial wrongful violation of indigenous rights across the world. The Doctrine of Discovery has been cited in Supreme Court cases regarding Tribal rights since that time. There have been numerous treaties and laws regarding Tribal rights over the years, including ones that involved water and land, but to this day Tribal status decisions have been primarily based on the Doctrine of Discovery. The 1887 Dawes Act placed Tribes and individual Native Americans on allotted land, opened up non-allotted land to non-native settlement, with surplus land usurped by the government; The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 reversed the Dawes Act, restored surplus land to Tribes, and authorized the government to acquire land, water and surface rights for Indians, and extended the placement of land into federal government trust; the 1950's Termination policies terminated some Tribes, removed land from trust status, extended state jurisdiction over land, and initiated relocation programs; and the 2000 Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments gave the government the ability to consolidate fragmented Tribal land resulting from the previous decisions. Over the years there have been federal laws passed, and repealed, to reverse past injustices and litigation challenging the same. It was during the 60's when Indian activists took a role in bringing Native American rights to the forefront. As a result, laws began to focus more on Tribal self-determination and self-governance, rather than being a "domestic dependent nation" or a "ward to his guardian" (#18). Decisions affecting Tribes would now be made by the Tribes rather than the federal government, although the government still holds authority over the tribes and the land on which they reside. The federal government holds reservation and other land "in trust" for the tribes, meaning tribes technically do not own title to their lands. The U.S. then administers and manages the land and resources for the fiduciary advantage of the tribe. Recognized as a "sovereign nation or state", tribes can form tribal governments; determine tribal membership; regulate individual property; levy and collect taxes; maintain law and order; exclude non-members from tribal territory; regulate domestic relations; and regulate commerce and trade. The federal government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights while Congress creates regulations that govern the territory belonging to the United States. As legal title-holder to most Indian lands, the U.S. has the power to dispose of and manage those lands, and derive income from them. Due to federal fiduciary mismanagement and the Cobell lawsuit, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDA) alone was awarded 18 million dollars of which 4.1 million will be used to buy back land with the Department of Interior (DOI) assisting. This establishes more land in trust to the federal government. The CDA people once inhabited 3,500,000 acres in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. In 1867, President Johnson established a reservation for the tribe at the request of the territorial governor, but it was not accepted by the tribe because the main waterways were not included. After the Tribe ceded almost 2.4 million acres to the government in 1873, negotiations established 598,000 acres for a reservation that included the St. Jo and Coeur d'Alene rivers and a portion of Lake Coeur d'Alene. The remaining land was lost to the allotment process. This agreement was no approved by Congress at the time. In 1889 the tribe ceded the northern third of the reservation back to the federal government, including part of Lake Coeur d'Alene. When Idaho became a state in 1890 Congress included a section disclaiming the state's rights to lands owned by tribes in the state constitution, then ratifying the earlier tribal agreements in 1891. In the 2001 Supreme Court case, Idaho v United States, it was determined that the U.S. held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene, holding that land in trust for the CDA Tribe. In 1909, after 114 allotments were completed, the remaining CDA reservation land was opened to homesteaders. By 1933, 40 per cent of the allotted land was sold. The federal government now uses land lost to allotment as a method to return land back to Tribes, still holding it "in trust" for the tribes. Other federal fiduciary responsibilities include protecting tribal treaty rights, assets, resources, and carrying out federal law mandates. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these laws to define Tribal land, land in trust, and allotment lands. In the EPA definition of a Federal Indian reservation, the EPA interprets the law in light of Supreme Court case law, that a reservation includes trust lands set apart for a tribe's use even though not formally designated as a reservation. Here is their website explaining all their definitions on Indian country. The EPA uses these different definitions for Indian country depending on each case. Using an Indian country definition from 1948 under 18 U.S. Code 1151, (c) states: includes all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. This is based on the the 1887 Dawes Act which allotted land to Indians in exchange for land paid for by the government to keep in trust for the tribe. Any surplus lands were taken out of Tribal ownership. In the Indian Energy Resource Program, the term Tribal Land "...means any land or interests in land owned by a tribe or tribes, title to which is held in trust by the United States...". Indian Land refers to any land located within or not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, the title to which is held in trust by the U.S. for the benefit of an Indian Tribe. The Indian Land Tenure Foundation is devoted to restoring these lands to the Tribes. With federal termination policies Tribal land was removed from trust status and Tribal affiliation. Since that time Tribes have fought to regain that land in addition to having land outside of reservations declared Sacred Sites for their protection and use. Money derived from casino earnings, federal grants and tax dollars, tax free trusts, court settlements, and resource use are used by Tribes to buy land back. Federally recognized Tribes can be allowed "same treatment as a state (TAS)" status. The EPA was allowed provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA) to give Tribes with TAS status authority to implement federal environmental law, making them eligible for federal funding. Federally recognized tribes in Idaho include the Coeur D’Alene Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. The CDA Tribe obtained TAS status in 2005. These tribes also have lobbyists in Idaho. Although there are multiple other court decisions and laws relating to tribal lands and rights, the essence is that because the federal government has full land and water authority over tribes through trusts, they have developed mechanisms for the tribes to not only recover previously held land but also enforce federal law. This is significant when it comes to both land and water rights. Engaging tribes in environmental regulations, and resource control, gives the government further power to implement Agenda 21. Part 2 will explore how Tribal land and water rights are being decided by the federal government. Tribal Water Rights
There have been long standing disputes regarding Tribal water rights with most court decisions upholding Tribal rights. Some of those cases are outlined in this article. However, there are a few court decisions that have determined the principle of Tribal water rights. The 1908 Supreme Court decision, Winters v United States, was the most significant case regarding Tribal water rights. The court determined that designated reservation lands included reserved water rights. Expanding on that case in 1963, the court held that water rights included all federal reservations of land, such as national parks and forests. This decision took over 87% of Idaho water. The 1983 case, United States v. Adair, gave senior water rights to Tribes "...with a priority date of time immemorial" (148) meaning from the time the reservation was established into the future. Arizona v. California is a set of different cases but the 1983 case increased water allotment to reservations. In the 1985 Montana case, Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the court determined that appropriators outside of reservation boundaries could not deplete stream waters where non-consumptive (fishing/hunting) rights apply. Based on the Winters and Arizona cases, Indian water rights are commonly held to principles known as the Winters Doctrine. These rights include Congress holding the right to reserve water for federal lands, including Indian reservations; reservations have the right to water sources within or bordering the reservation; reservation water rights are reserved as of the date of the reservation's creation; and the amount of water reserved for Indian use is the amount necessary to irrigate all of the practically irrigable land on the reservation with state laws being secondary to federally reserved water rights. These rights apply to both surface and groundwater, and to other federal reserved land. To determine the amount of water needed for Tribal land a water quantification, or practicably irrigable acreage (PIA), was created. Because of years of litigation and costs associated with these disputes, water rights are now negotiated between the Tribe, organizations, and the state and federal government for a settlement agreement, with specific criteria and procedures set forth in 1990, thanks to GHWB. If federal funding is involved it then goes through Congress for approval. What started out as an attempt to quantify water rights for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead reservation, ultimately turned into the most egregious federal take over of water and elimination of water rights for Montana citizens. Instead of quantifying water allotment to the Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Federal Reserved Water Compact (CSKT) was created through negotiations between the federal government, Tribes, and the State. This compact puts all water rights in 11 counties under Tribal control. Yes, ALL water rights including municipal and private well water. In doing so, the federal government now holds those rights in trust. In this case the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the 1948 Indian country definition (c) "all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished...". The Aamodt settlement is another classic example of how the federal government uses previous treaties to give land back to Tribes and gain control over water. This settlement calls for diverting water to four New Mexico Tribes, creating a regional water system which will take water away from New Mexico citizens and who will then be forced to pay for it. As part of the 2010 Claims Resolution Act Pub. L. No. 111-291 this settlement was put into law along with other settlements. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), serving Idaho Tribes in the northwest region, has a department that specifically assists with tribal water issues, including funds for negotiations and litigation, your tax dollar being used against you to support Tribes in water disputes. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has an Indian Water Rights Office for the same as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. The DOI also provides personnel, technical, and financial assistance to tribes on water rights issues. Through EPA regulation 131.8(a)(3), the CDA Tribe was authorized to administer and determine water quality standards (WQS) within the reservation boundary. However, any water from non-members flowing into reservation boundaries can be held to any WQS the tribe sets, which a tribe can make more stringent. Prior to officially granting TAS status to the CDA Tribe, concerns about Tribal authority over waters and non-members were answered by the EPA. The EPA cited the reservation boundaries in the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. at 1027 as the basis by which current water could be governed by the Tribe. The Act determined that land not ceded by the CDA Tribe but held by the U.S. would now officially be ceded by the Tribe, relinquishing all right and title. The government compensated the Tribe $150,000 along with other provisions with the DOI managing those funds for the Tribe. Not cited by the EPA, Article 2, page 1030, outlines the ceded land description for which they were paid $500,000. The EPA also referenced Act of August 15, 1894, 28 Stat. at 322. The CDA Tribe was paid $15,000 in 1894 for an additional tract of land on the northern boundary of the reservation. Article I under Agreement in President Grant's 1894 executive order explains the CDA Tribe boundaries. So the EPA is using land decisions from 124 years ago and older to justify extension of Tribal water rights, along with the 1983 "time immemorial" during current settlement negotiations. The question as to whether or not non-ceded land should be given back to Tribes under the same 1894 Act was considered, then refused, in the 2011 Yankton Sioux Tribe vs South Dakota Supreme Court case. These same concerns about Tribal extension over non-members arise over air quality. Under the CAA, the EPA included previously negotiated Wind River land for the Tribe to regulate air quality in Wyoming. The Wyoming Supreme Court determined in 2008 that Congress "intended to diminish" reservation land in 1905. Land ceded by Tribes in 1905 became the EPA's justification under the CAA to extend Tribal boundaries which took the town of Riverton. The DOI Solicitor took part in this malfeasance by supporting the extension of reservation boundaries in 2011 using selective decisions and laws to substantiate the final decision for the Tribe. Why not, DOI uses your tax dollar to support Tribes. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also supported this action. And why not, DOJ established the Office of Tribal Justice to "...coordinate policy towards Indian Tribes..." in 1995, partnering with other bureaus and offices in DOJ to achieve the same. Recognizing this boundary issue as a potential barrier to their agenda, in August, 2015 the EPA brought forth a Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provision which would give Tribes the ability to extend reservation boundaries as done in the CAA. The EPA is also working on streamlining the process to obtain TAS status which would in turn hasten EPA policy enforcement. Bottom line is that the federal government is exploiting Tribes for the purpose of taking land, water, and other rights away from American citizens and putting those resources directly into their hands through the Tribal trust arrangement. America citizens who are not members of the Tribe lose all rights to a representative government as they then fall under Tribal jurisdiction and government. From the 6 to 9 minute mark in this video, Elaine Willman explains how the federal government is using Tribes to take control of land. In this New American article, Exploiting Indians, the Wind River Reservation issue is explained which is really one methodology the federal government uses to take land and water away from American citizens. From these cases to what has been happening across the U.S. for years, it is clear the EPA as well as other federal agencies are in bed with Tribes to usurp land and water rights. The Tribal advantage is amassing millions in federal funds and for the federal government increased ownership and control of resources. With those funds the Tribes are then able to buy more land, hire lobbyists, and fund politicians to further advance their power. So what does any of this have to do with the UN? United Nations - Agenda 21
Agenda 21, Chapter 26 is titled "Recognizing And Strengthening The Role Of Indigenous People And Their Communities". That was in 1992. It is stunning how these goals have been implemented and advanced since that time. The United Nations (UN) has defined indigenous people as self-identified, pre-colonial and pre-settler, with a strong link to resources, distinct political systems, language, and beliefs, and being a non-dominant group. Goals of Chapter 26 include strengthening policies to empower indigenous people; creating national dispute-resolution arrangements for land settlement and resource-management; strengthening indigenous peoples participation in formulation of policies and programmes relating to resource management and initiation of proposals for such policies and programmes; enhancing sustainable development (SD); protecting cultural property; creating inter-governmental cooperation; and providing technical and financial assistance to them. As seen in Part 2, some of these goals have been accomplished by the federal government. The UN worked on Indigenous issues prior to Agenda 21. In 1982 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations began studying fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to develop international standards for indigenous peoples rights. Although never ratified by the U.S., in 1989, the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) law, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), called for countries to recognize indigenous people's right to control their institution, life, economic development, and right to maintain their identity, languages and religions. Article 14 specifically addresses land issues, requiring states to safeguard indigenous people's right to land "...not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access...", and procedures to resolve land claims. The Convention also calls for indigenous recognition in other areas, all of which the U.S. has achieved through federal actions. The first action taken to accomplish Chapter 26 goals was in 1993 by WJC Executive Order (EO) 12852, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, implementing Agenda 21. The council was comprised of federal agencies which included the Department of Interior (DOI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and UN non-governmental organizations (NGO). The DOI manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S.Geological Survey (USGS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and National Park Service (NPS), all of which promote indigenous rights, while the DOI continued managing the fiduciary responsibilities. In 1995 the Department of Justice (DOJ) established a policy to empower Tribes and government relations, and protect Tribal culture, establishing an Office on Tribal Justice in 2014. The 1996 EO 13007 by WJC declared Indian access to and protection of sacred sites on federal land. EO 12852 was expanded in 2000 with WJC EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, giving Tribes a greater voice in federal policies by placing an Indian office in each federal agency. BHO reinforced EO 13175 in 2009 with a memorandum instructing all federal agencies to submit plans to implement EO 13175. In 2011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), to implement sustainable development goals, now removed. (Update: It is replaced with the new 2016 MOU to implement Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals) Sustainable Development goals are being achieved by the EPA. Other federal agencies promoting the same can be found here. Those are some accomplishments for Agenda 21. But the UN expanded Chapter 26 goals. In 2007 the UN revealed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). The essence of this declaration is the recognition of indigenous collective rights for culture, language, identity, employment, health, education, and prohibiting discrimination. There are 46 articles in this document outlining indigenous rights. Some of those rights are directly related to U.S. history such as rights to self-determination and self government; not being subjected to forced assimilation or cultural destruction or forcibly removed from their lands or territories; not be dispossessed of their land, territories or resources; practice cultural traditions; control educational systems in their own culture and language; administer programmes through their own institutions; and right to traditional medicines. Most of these have already been enacted in U.S. law. More terrifying however are the articles on indigenous rights to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired; compensation for lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent; and that compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress. Although never officially recognized or adopted by Congress, through BHO, this declaration is "supported" and being implemented. In 2007 the DOI appointed an individual as Counsel to Assistance Secretary-Indian Affairs who had actually worked in partnership with the UN on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The DOI, in 2010, called for a review of DRIP and subsequently, after a "review" by federal agencies, BHO declared U.S. support in 2010 while outlining his accomplishments in meeting some of the declaration's goals. The Department of State also supported this BHO declaration to "address the consequences of history". A representative from Interior Indian Affairs proudly announced BHO's decision to support DRIP at the UN in 2011. There was no Congressional approval for this. Not satisfied with just governments implementing their agenda, in 2011 the UN created the United Nations-Indigenous People's Partnership (UNIPP), a full partnership with indigenous groups to advance the agenda and carry out DRIP mandates. This includes partnerships between UN organizations, indigenous groups, and other UN bodies such as non-governmental organizations (NGO). In 2012 UNEP developed a guidance policy for member states to use in policy development and bring indigenous people into closer partnership with the UN. In 2013, EO 13647 established the White House Council on Native American Affairs that includes inter-governmental agency coordination on Indian affairs. Not surprisingly, the first meeting didn't include any Tribal leaders. Following that in December 2014, BHO announced to Tribal leaders his intent to restore tribal homelands and resolve water right disputes, both commitments to Agenda 21 and DRIP. The DOI strategic plan 2014-2018 actively implements DRIP. In this plan the DOI outlines commitments to strengthen tribal nations; restore tribal lands; establish strong relationships with tribes; fulfill commitments for water rights; develop and increase energy resources; preserve and enhance cultural interests and sacred sites; convert 500,000 acres from fee to trust; enhance water availability to tribes; finalize and implement water rights settlements; provide technical assistance and ecosystem restoration; secure water supplies; protect tribal water rights; improve infrastructure; honor and protect cultural resources; and protect treaty rights. This will all be accomplished through DOI partnerships with other federal agencies, that "inter-government" collaboration. If anyone wants to know the direction American citizens are headed with land and water rights, this plan tells you. An outline of the plan was presented to the Indian Affairs committee in 2011 and as a result there has been legislation introduced and passed for implementation. RESTORING LAND In 2014 Michael Crapo (R-ID) was responsible for the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act which restores previous land held by the the Fort Hall Reservation and compensation for land lost in the exchange. Jon Tester (D-MT) has taken it upon himself to sponsor laws that would restore water and land to Tribes in four states. Tester also introduced S.732 which would give the DOI the ability to take land back into trust even though a Tribe is not federally recognized, overturning a Supreme Court decision. Six bills were passed in November, 2015, four of which put land into trust on behalf of Tribes. Having made previous attempts to extend Tribal land, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation to declare Nevada land should be held in trust for Tribes as reservation land, including Duck Valley. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) introduced a bill that would allow the DOI to take into trust additional lands for the Siletz Tribe from the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation. Fortunately going nowhere, the America Indian Empowerment Act 2015 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) would fulfill DRIP by granting fee land back to tribes. Land at Fort Wingate in New Mexico, an abandoned military installment, was given back to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation in 2014, another example of how the federal government places land "in trust" for Tribes, along with all the resources. The DOI implemented the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPR) in 1995 granting Tribal rights to human remains and sacred objects. In 2015 the DOI pulled together other crony federal agencies for an MOU to protect Tribal sacred sites, not only on federal land but private land as well. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) will help with this as well, along with other commitments. The federal government is also spending 1.9 Billion to buy land back for placement into trust for Tribes per DOI Secretarial Order 3325. Here is the 2015 status report. But the truth is, that land is going into federal hands who are probably drooling at the opportunity to promote another UN goal, economic development. Tribes working with the government to implement SD practices as seen in this 2014 CDA Reservation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, loaded with UN ideology. The government is lying to Tribes when it says this scam will restore tribal lands. It is putting land into government hands for future manipulation towards UN goals. It couldn't be more well stated in this Standing Rock Sioux Tribe agreement, "Consolidated interests are immediately transferred to Tribal governments and stay in trust for uses benefiting the tribes and their members." What has the federal government ever done with fiduciary responsibilities for Tribes that is ethical? It was the Cobell lawsuit, filed because of fiduciary mismanagement, that created this land buy back program in the first place. And now Tribes are being deceived again. Your tax dollar, "awarded" to Tribes, then used by Tribes to buy land which goes into federal hands. These are only a few examples of how the federal government is working to achieve the UN DRIP agenda to restore land to Tribes. Other legislation related to land issues can be found here. According to the UN NGO National Congress of American Indians document, on pages 26-27, the DOI has placed about 9 million acres of land into trust for Tribes since 1934 stating it represents only about 10% of 90 million acres lost. Idahoans better start pulling together and revolt against any further land confiscation as this issue will only worsen. WATER Established in 2009, the DOI has an Indian Water Rights Office for the purpose of oversee implementation of water settlements. The Bureau of Reclamation also supports Indian water rights. The DOI was successful in getting legislation passed in December, 2015 that provides technical assistance and funds for energy while giving preference for hydroelectric licenses to Tribes. The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the federal government cannot take land into trust for Indian Tribes not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934. Tester's bill S.732 is an effort to overrule that decision so that more land, including the water rights attached to it, would be available for the government to place into trust for Tribes. This year, DOI Secretary Jewell actively worked to give your tax dollar to Tribes, including Duck Valley, for restoration of "water rights", fulfilling DRIP requirements. Funds for improving Tribal water and sanitation infrastructure is provided by the EPA plus grants for building water infrastructures. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a bill to fund renovations of Tribal irrigation systems. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 met DRIP mandates to bring water disputes to settlement. According to the DOI Deputy Secretary water right settlements are the right direction for everyone. The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act 2009 is loaded with placing large parcels of land into federal hands and turning water over to Tribes. But, most alarming, Tribes as well as American citizens should be concerned about the trend of banks, most of which are UN business partners, buying water rights and utilities. These UN crony banks won't care one iota whether Tribes get their perceived right to water. The whole scam is controlling water and the amount the UN thinks you should have. Wake up Idaho. UN Meanwhile, back at the UN, UN NGOs such as the American Indian Law Alliance, Association on American Indian Affairs, Foundation for the American Indian, Native American Rights Fund, Cherokee Nation, and Western Shoshone Defense Project are just a few groups that work to promote UN ideology and goals. Activists have also been working with the UN to urge more emphasis on water rights issues. But going beyond that, there are now demands for "...our right to have our treaties honored and respected as binding international instruments...", rejecting the faux U.S. support of DRIP. A UN human rights investigator called for the U.S. to return all land back to tribes in 2012. In 2011 the UN criticized the U.S. of discriminating against indigenous people's right to safe drinking water even though the U.S. had recently joined a UN consensus resolution that recognized the right to water is a right to an adequate standard of living. The Doctrine of Discovery has become an focused issue with the UN including groups advocating for its removal. This would dramatically alter U.S. relations with Tribes and have a devastating impact on America as we know it. Other bills permitting the use of peyote and educating Indian children in their native culture and language have been passed. The World Conference of Indigenous People, held in 2014 includes new declarations to incorporate Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development. More serious, a subject that is never covered in the open, Alaska and Hawaii indigenous groups are asking for UN intervention to end U.S. "occupation". The UN has a group that works on decolonization. Beginning on page 18, the UN group discusses the possibility of Hawaii being decolonized, and concluding on page 21, "...there is a process to seek decolonization through the Decolonization Committee" for Hawaii. Conclusion Efforts to keep this issue short were impossible. The information presented in this 3 part series is only a fraction of what the federal government is doing in collusion with the UN and Tribes. And it is not going to end. EVERYONE must go back and read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as so often stated by everyone now. Every aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been violated by the federal government. As a Constitutional Republic we are no longer being represented by those we elect. The federal government is in the business of representing the UN. The federal government is so embedded with the UN that in 2010 legislation was actually introduced to have an Ambassador to the UN be in the line of succession to the presidency. Don't be shocked if this comes up again. "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." It is up to us to stop these unconstitutional acts. It is time for Idahoans to come together, develop a plan, and execute that plan to demand Idaho stand up for state rights and disengage from every unconstitutional federal law being enacted in Idaho. We must do this or we will continue to be raped of any last piece of liberty that remains. Understanding our Forests Idaho has some of the most beautiful and pristine forests in the United States. For decades Idaho foresters have dedicated their lives to maintain the health of our forests but are now faced with an agenda of destruction. Part 1 introduces the reader to the history and constitution of the lodgepole pine, the Targhee National Forest, and forest management practices up to 1980. The purpose is to understand what management practices are needed for forest health. For anyone who loves the forest this first part is the beginning introduction to understanding how our forests are being destroyed.
Who owns Idaho forests? According to Idaho Forest Products Commission the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) own 79%, or 17.3 million acres; corporations, Tribes, and Family Forest Landowners own 15% or 2.6 million acres; and the State of Idaho owns 6%, or 1.5 million acres through State Forests and State Parks . The objectives of these different groups vary, from producing wood products, promoting wildlife habitat, and promoting a mix of environmental and economic values. Historically, the federal government expanded the amount of land and their control over Idaho forests from as early as 1906 with local opposition at the same time, and which continues today. Since that time the government has continued to expand their control over other Idaho forests. The characteristics of Idaho forests vary so for the purpose of this article the focus will be on the lodgepole pine as it is a widely distributed species in Idaho. In order to understand how our forests are being destroyed it is important to understand the constitution and care of forests that contribute to forest health. According to the USFS, some constitutional aspects of the lodgepole pine include its ability to thrive in a wide variety of topographic situations, grow in pure stands and with other western conifers, tolerance of different environmental factors, and being a prolific seed producer especially in clearcuts where cones attached to the slash scatter seeds over the forest floor when knocked down during slash disposal. Another unique lodgepole feature is its ability to regenerate after a fire as the cone releases seed at high temperatures, but it does not require fire to regenerate. During early growth lodgepoles require good sunlight and absorb higher concentrations of carbon while a dead tree emits almost all of its stored carbon into the atmosphere. Lodgepoles show good response to thinning at an early age (17), with poor sites and overstocked stands requiring thinning as early as age 10. Along with thinning, lodgepoles need a clean forest floor, free from excessive debris, slash, and grass in order to regenerate. Detriments to lodgepole regeneration include intolerance of shade, excessive grass or slash which inhibits seed germination and survival, overstocking, stand density, and competition from other plant species. Mountain pine Beetle epidemics also destroy vast acreages of lodgepole. The mountain pine beetle, a natural forest species, is the most severe insect pest of lodgepole pine. Harvesting is considered a preventative measure for mountain pine beetle epidemics as the beetle will migrate to adjacent stands. Another pest to the lodgepole is the pine engraver which develops in logging slash, especially slash that is shaded and does not dry quickly. Prompt slash disposal is an effective control measure along with clearcutting and locating unit boundaries to minimize reinfection from surrounding stands. Mortality from beetle epidemics often creates large amounts of jackstrawed fuel that ignites easily from lightning and other sources, which in turn hamper fire control efforts. There are different methods of harvesting forest wood. Clearcutting removes all trees in a stand; seedtree removes the majority of mature trees; shelterwood is selective harvesting; group selection harvests mature trees and thins intermediate trees; and single tree selection a highly selective system removal of individual trees, leaving the majority of the trees on a site standing while removing dead and diseased trees from the forest. It is important to understand harvesting methods as variables such as tree species, age, diseases, and restoration determine which harvesting method is used, and can be a source of conflicting views. Idaho has a history of protecting its forests. In the 1940's the Keep Idaho Green campaign was launched to educate the public on preventing forest fires. In 1950 Idaho introduced the Guberif as a reminder for Idahoans to exercise responsibility while enjoying our forests and prevent forest fires. The Guberif was a huge success, seen everywhere, and was a symbol children understood. By the 1960's the Targhee National forest was overgrown and considered to be full of old growth. Because of a mountain pine bark beetle epidemic and increased fire hazard a forest restoration project was started in the 1970's to clear the forest of old growth and plant new trees, while putting the deadwood to good use. The proper maintenance of lodgepole pine is discussed in this 1970 research paper stating, "Maintenance of lodgepole pine forests requires both a greater understanding of the continuing biological processes and a high level of management". Historically pine beetle epidemics have occurred multiple times, as early as 1870 to present, attack the largest, or older, trees first, then moving to smaller trees or adjacent stands. A forest destroyed by the pine beetle is more susceptible to fires and loss of residual trees due to windthrow, and the cost of fire fighting is doubled. According to this paper the probability of a stand being infested in Targhee appeared to be rather high. Suggested management practices to reduce pine beetle epidemics were to replace lost lodgepoles with a different tree species, tree size rotation, and plant species and age class mixtures. By 1980 more was understood about protecting the lodgepole from beetle epidemics. This research article references necessary forest health to protect watersheds, game habitat, and provide raw materials. Often lodgepoles regenerate too abundantly causing dense stands that inhibit their own and other species growth, and young lodgepole growth which need sun for rapid growth. The report also recognized that "Plans developed to prevent or to reduce mountain pine beetle population buildup in lodgepole pine stands must consider renewable-resource silviculture." To reduce beetle epidemics at the time of this report several methods were recommended. Type Conversion is the replacement of a lodgepole with another species such as a Douglas-fir to serve water-shed management and other purposes. It could be accomplished naturally through culturing the understory or artificially by cutting, then planting or seeding the desired species. Other recommendations included Short Rotations or selecting trees for product requirements, creating mix species stands, age and species mosaics, stock control (a method of single tree selection), repeated thinning, partial cuts, and clearcutting being the best management practice. A "do nothing" approach was also reviewed and was found to be the most detrimental where, "the infestation continued, and 39 percent of the trees, or 52 percent of the basal area, was lost to the beetle." One other side effect of this devastation is the release of carbon from dead trees. The first 5 years after harvesting were very encouraging in reducing beetle epidemics. In the discussion of fires, 2 methods out of 6 found either to be favorable regarding the pine beetle. "Allow "safe" lightning fires to burn, allow for some other wildfires that cannot be controlled, but prescribe enough additional controlled fires to assure the natural fire regime...which would provide approximately the natural fire regimen and avoid the risk of letting wildfires get out of hand before control is attempted." Secondly, "suppress all wildfires to the extent feasible, and duplicate the natural fire regime with prescribed-controlled fires." Fire suppression was to be used concomitantly with other practices such as thinning, harvesting, and prescribed burns. Another adverse effect of forest fires is the release of carbon into the air. Most interesting of all was number 6. "Abandon the ideal of natural ecosystems and turn to full-scale vegetation and environmental manipulation by mechanical and chemical means, seeding, planting, and so on. Attempt to produce desired vegetation with the tools of applied forestry." Recommended management objectives included a three-phase harvest program over a 21-year period, clean up the mess and reduce the fire hazard, mitigate adverse effects on soil, water, and wildlife, regenerate stands quickly, and utilize wood fiber, thereby maintaining the forest and its resources. In summary, focusing on the lodgepole pine and the Targhee National Forest in Southeast Idaho, efforts on the part of Idahoans to mitigate the loss of our forests to fires and pine beetle epidemics prior to 1980 included specific forest practices of harvesting trees and protecting the other forest attributes such as wildlife and watersheds. The destructive policies and imposed regulations contributing to the destruction of our forests will be explained in part 2. The Destruction of our Forests Hopefully, the reader now has a better understanding of just one pine tree, forest management practices that maintain forest health, and practices that are detrimental. So, just how are Idaho forests being destroyed? Looking at the historical events provides a timeline of events.
There have been consistent forest management values from the early 1900's to present. These values include recreational and economic resource use, wildlife habitat, grazing, and watershed protection. Although already understood in the early 1900's, The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) of 1960 recognized these values for the development and management of forests, and continued forest vitality. The Multiple-Use Management concept was a good idea but the United States Forest Service (USFS) and other groups took it to an extreme that has led us to the forest destruction we see today. According to the Forest History Society, forest management from 1910-1929 was based on a European model. The major consideration at the time was the economic impact from forest harvesting, not only for local communities but for the state as well. From his Reconnaissance of the Targhee in 1910, C. E. Dunston's report recommended establishing best silvicultural practices, preventing fires and bark beetle epidemics (which to this day are still considered primary forest enemies), and both selection and clear cutting for continued forest health and product yield for the Targhee Forest. It was also found that piling and burning of slash was best as the material did not deteriorate rapidly enough, hence being a fire hazard. Reforestation efforts were attempted but not economically feasible. During the 1920's increased efforts to prevent fires were instituted including lookout posts and training. They found that fires threatened sustained-yield management and in the period before 1929 the outbreaks of bark beetles were the worst. Focus on developing forests for recreational use, creation of national monuments, and game management also began during this time. The forest service itself continue to grow from these early beginnings. The USDA Forest Service - The First Century booklet describes how common sense practices from the past morphed into a huge conglomerate of "specialists" (starting with MUSY) that originated from expanding federal laws, heavily advocated for by environmental groups, and who believed every forest species should be protected or untouched. It is virtually impossible to practice good forest management without a secondary effect to other species, but it is necessary for the protection of the forest and all forest species which seems to escape environmentalists understanding. In other words, they can't see the forest for the trees. Mentioned in the booklet is Gifford Pinchot, the First Chief of Forest Service, who began the idea of conservation and founded the Society of American Foresters (SAF) in 1900. Another forest service worker, Aldo Leopold, first wrote about setting aside forests for special protection in wilderness areas in 1914 and was also one of the founders of the Wilderness Society in 1935. This booklet gives a timeline from the late 1800's to 2005. Some highlights include their perception of how man has destroyed the forests, increased USFS acquisition and control over forests despite opposition from communities, the beginning of environmental groups who from the 60's and 70's have actively engaged in advocating for practices that are destroying forests and instituted endless litigation, increasing regulations that have hampered our ability to properly manage our forests, and federal laws that contribute to the mess. It was in the early 80's when forest management started to change. Laws of particular note from the 1970's are: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976 - with a 2012 update - established forest management requirements and plans in national forests National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1970 - requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to any project Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1973 - placed restrictions on forest use and protection of habitat Other laws impacting forest management can be found here. This booklet also outlines the overall explosion of expanded government control over our forests and dwindling importance of what lodgepoles and forests need to thrive. What the focus became is fully outlined in the first paragraph on page 155, individuals who don't understand forestry but only their own specific focus and interests. A shorter forest service timeline from the late 1800's can be found here. The United States Forest Service (USFS) operates under multiple federal laws. The forester must know and follow regulations that cover everything from how to cut trees, from where the tree can be cut, which tree can be cut, how far from a stream a tree can be cut, what insect or animal makes its home in a pile, which bush grows where, and the list goes on before a tree can be touched or slash cleaned. For the interested reader those regulations can be found at the bottom of the link under Policies. All of these laws were heavily lobbied for by environmental groups in the 1960s and 1970s and large national organizations such as the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council surged in membership, lobbying to pass legislation such as the Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. From the early 60's environmental groups engage in extensive litigation to stop projects, a Targhee case can be found here. A USFS study showed the impact to local jobs and tax revenue as a result of these lawsuits. An effort to stop these groups from massive litigation, which typically center around stopping any efforts for better forest management, was introduced in Congress this year. The reader is invited to read all of the detailed requirements in 36 CFR 220, from NEPA. Highlights of these restrictive requirements include: any action being subject to USFS control; detailed EIS; justification and explanation of the project following scoping; further analysis if a critical habitat, watershed, roadless area, or religious site is perceived by the USFS (or environmental group) to be affected in the EIS; plus restrictions on reforestation, hazardous fuel reduction, harvesting, salvaging, and pest control. In Part 1, Understanding our Forests, one can see why these requirements contribute to the loss of our forests. These requirements make it almost impossible to properly remove diseased trees, slash, dead wood, or promote regeneration. Even reforesting becomes difficult. These requirements have set up our forests for increased beetle epidemics and wildfires over the last 25 years with millions of forest acres lost. Wildfires have been increasing to the point where Congress tried to intervene in 2002 by reversing these destructive practices. This timeline from 1980 to 2014 shows the increased number of fires including those over 100,000 acres. This map shows the highest mountain pine beetle infestations are in Idaho wilderness areas where forests are "protected", with no management practices highly recommended by environmental groups, the forest left to beetle destruction. In response to the increasing problem of forest fires the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 was an attempt to start managing forests to reduce fire hazards. Following are Targhee and Island Park "proposed actions" that lay out the complex steps that have to be taken to protect forests. The Porcupine Pasture Project in Targhee and surrounding Island Park area was undertaken to reduce the amount of fuel load for the purposes of preventing a potentially high risk wildfire in 2011. This "environmental assessment" includes justification for the project, environmental mitigation measures, environmental impact on vegetation, old growth, botanical, hydrologic, soil, scenery, wildlife, recreational, range, and travel resources. All those specialists at work. Any one area considered to be adversely affected by this project would halt it. Meanwhile, the Lodgepole just has to sit and wait for that fire or beetle outbreak. It can take up to 4 years to complete these studies. Following the Targhee Revised Forest Plan this 2015 "scoping" document to reauthorize grazing in the Island Park area outlines which cows can graze, where they can graze, and how long they can graze. Grazing can actually be beneficial as it reduces fire hazard overgrowth. This 2010 document for the revised plan proposes keeping old forest growth for habitat. In this document a final decision was made to expand the Black Canyon Trail. It verifies that a "specialist analysis" was conducted and that at any point in time a project can be shut down for a consultation with a specialist. A final decision was reached to reduce fuel loads for fire risk reduction in Northern Island park in this 2015 document. Because of an owl, some neighbor opposition, and the possible "disturbance" to some Bald Eagles, the Bootjack area was omitted from fuel hazard reduction. Isn't it logical that not reducing a fuel hazard will increase the chances of a fire destroying the whole area? If they survive, where will the owl and eagle live then? Or the neighbors? How long will it take for that area to regenerate? Each of these documents follow the same format from initial justification to proving no harm will be done to anything. Hey, what happened to what the lodgepole needs to thrive? With these expanded regulations, at some point, it will become impossible to do anything with our forests. A full list of proposed actions in the Targhee area can be found here. In 2000, the Idaho Forest Products Commission wrote an article about increasing fires and land management. It wasn't until the 1970's when environmental groups entered the picture and pushed the government to leave the forests alone, stop logging, and let the fires burn that the catastrophic destruction of forests began. Up to that point preventing forest fires was the mantra while at the same time effective management practices of logging, thinning, and prescribed burns were standard. Even more appalling, the very practices environmental groups promote paradoxically make forest health worse. Thinning lodgepoles improves the environment by allowing young trees to capture more carbon while removing old growth or dead trees prevents the release of carbon into the air. Fires release vast carbon storage into the air and destroy wildlife homes they so adamantly say they are protecting. Lodgepole overgrowth after a fire chokes out other species and inhibits regeneration of new growth. Not clearing the forest floor of slash prevents new growth while fire hazards are increased in addition to making fires more difficult to contain. This publication on the Warm Lake fire in 2007 explains it all and provides pictures of a treated forest versus a untreated fire ravaged area, clearly validating practices of fire suppression with other management practices such as reducing fuel loads and forest thinning. Does a garden need to be thinned and weeded? Well, so does the forest. One last note is the climate change scam that warmer temperatures and less moisture are the cause forest destruction. Well, climate change wasn't around back in the early 1900's, the population was less, then why was there so much forest destruction by fire and pests back then? Well, man wasn't there to take care of the forest, the forest was on its own and left to mother nature, the "do nothing" method. As man began to understand forests and management needs, then putting those protections into practice, the forest destruction declined. From what the reader now understands, this National Wildlife Federation video sums up the illogical blame on climate change. It is understood that forests need to be managed from an approach that protects all habitat and species. But, in doing so, there will be secondary effects that cannot be avoided. Should it not be the goal to limit, rather than restrict, secondary effects as much as possible while still achieving the goal of maintaining the forest so all species can continue? Go back, take a minute and think about the lodgepole and its needs. Trees are the foundation of a forest, without them nothing can live. If not protected as a tree, nothing is protected. The USFS, laws, regulations, and environmental groups have made sure the lodgepole is forgotten. The "specialists" mandated by federal laws are being used as pawns in forest destruction. So, the lodgepole can regenerate without fires, flourish by thinning and letting the sun help new growth while lessening water and other species competition, thrive with a floor clean of debris and slash, and thereby making life more difficult for the beetle to take over but still exist as part of the natural habitat. During periods of warmer weather with less available moisture, if a tree is healthy, it is less stressed. Part 3 will take a look at other sources of forest destruction besides our own government. |
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
April 2024
|