Biodiversity and Ecosystems
This is the second of a six part series. The reader is highly encouraged to go to these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
After gathering wood in the forest for a warm fire, my father insisted that we not only clean up our mess, but clean up other slash and debris in the area. I did not understand at the time he was teaching us how to take care of the land in Island Park. Another dreaded chore was cutting down tall, overgrown grass around the cabin during the hot August summers. He knew this was a fire load that could potentially fuel a major fire. But we also went on our special trip for huckleberries. No habitat was destroyed, the vegetation is still there, and the huckleberries still grow. Daddy, thank you for teaching me how to care for and respect the land in Island Park.
Coined in 1935, ecosystem is defined as "a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment." Ecosystems have different components of growing, living species.
One component is biodiversity. It is defined as "diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment." Island Park has a multitude of different species which we all love such as wild strawberries, morels, watercress, trees, rainbows, brookies, skunks, porcupines, and the beloved moose and elk. From all indications, each continues to survive in Island Park.
Wetlands are "land that has a wet and spongy soil, as a marsh, swamp, or bog." Island Park has the most beautiful marsh behind Elk Creek. In spite of weekly horseback riding through that marsh there was no long term damage. The marsh still exists.
Riparian refers to the bank of a river or lake and anything living around it such as fish, other water species, and vegetation. Elk and other animal species use it for water and food. We use it to cast a fly for fish that might take a bite or jumping in for a swim, or maybe just look for a pretty rock.
Wildlife, biodiversity, wetlands, and riparian areas are just a few ecosystem components. They are interconnected, dependent on each other for survival, and terms used by NGOs and government agencies to justify their work. Humans are one component not always mentioned. Not seen as a necessary presence in the ecosystem, humans are more often than not considered a destructive force, requiring removal for ecosystem protection. Conservation and removing all human activity are scientists and NGO goals.
There is grave concern that land development is encroaching upon buffer zones, areas that surround a protected area which are intended to shield the core area from man’s activities, thus allowing more space for mammals. Private land ownership is in a precarious position. There are ongoing discussions about controlling land use planning from regional to municipal levels. Seen as part of "ecosystem management", land use planning objectives include conservation, stopping development, zoning and growth controls, and increasing restrictions. How you design your home and land will be dictated to you. This article by ScienceDirect explains it beautifully.
Land, plant, and animal species don't understand boundaries, extending themselves across states, into designated parks such as West Yellowstone, and even across countries. Ecosystems are viewed in the same manner, there are no jurisdictional boundaries. NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC), believe these ecosystems, components and corridors, have the right to protection regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. These boundary erasures create a regional concept, erasing boundaries between states and counties, the United States and other countries, and create an artificial "conservation boundary". Essentially, the United States is being divided up into regions with artificial boundaries made up of different conservation areas. Here is a map of "conservation planning boundaries" from the Wildlands Network, which includes the current agenda in Island Park, Yellowstone to Yukon and Crown of the Continent.
Part of the proposed US 20 IP Corridor Plan is the placement of artificial overpasses for safer passage during Elk migration, just a first step towards creating artificial corridors for connectivity. Each ecosystem component will be gradually introduced for protection, such as riparian areas. Riparian areas extend into surrounding wetlands and other water sources which will extend boundaries further for conservation. Ecosystem components will eventually be used to place the whole environment into some type of corridor needing protection, either through conservation or designation as a protected site. Remember, your private property will be impacted by this.
All of this falls under the Climate change umbrella. According to NGOs drastic action must be taken to not only conserve areas and protect them from humans, "mitigation" measures must be undertaken to prevent loss from development and climate change. The essence of mitigation is to avoid, minimize, and offset environmental impacts to lands and waters. In 2016 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released their new Mitigation Policy. This policy provides a framework and landscape-scale approach for mitigation with increasing conservation, no net loss of resources or values, and effective linkage for landscape scale conservation strategies. Created by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) always uses science endorsing climate change. However, there is science that does not support the idea of climate change, or even if it exists. According to the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) there are opposing scientific views. Even the former Director of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, now has doubts.
As ecological engineers, scientists believe in giving "point value" to everything, a mathematical formula. Although the Island Park NGO conservation agenda has not yet advanced to creating corridors for other components, the same value points will be assigned to them. An example of this can be found in the Cramer Safety Solutions report used in the US 20 IP Corridor Plan, starting on page 159. For some reason land ownership and recreation receive low point value.
The environment is remarkably skilled at regenerating itself. Our only job is using it and helping it when needed, like cleaning up the floor bed to reduce fuel loads. It is interesting that such a dichotomy exists with NGOs. On one hand their agenda is leaving the environment in its natural state. At the same time they are creating environmental engineering schemes to alter it.
Use of this land, from the time my father was a teenager to present, did not cause any permanent damage requiring protection. Yet the future generation from that era, the current generation, is denied the right to use and enjoy this land as he did, with efforts underway to completely end all use. There is nothing that justifies this. The current wildlife passage project has nothing to do with Elk. This is a systematic agenda to alter where and how we live, and erase sovereign boundaries. It is part of a broader agenda to destroy state sovereignty and our foundation of government upon which America was built.
My bond with Island Park grew from touching her land, hearing her sounds, seeing her beauty, tasting her gifts, and caring for her. Isolation from humans and landscape alteration are heartless and inhumane agendas, advanced by those who have no bond with her.
To all those NGOs and scientists, we have been, and still are, the custodian, guardian, and protector of Island Park and her gifts, way before you were born or formed into little special interest groups, this was not invented by you, and we care for it more responsibly. There has been no long term damage to Island Park from those who have lived here for generations, there is nothing broke that needs fixed. The most comprehensive and destructive land polices were only born when NGOs became involved. Ask any rancher or farmer, they know. The true agenda is pushing us off our land into cities, taking control of our resources, and dictating how, if at all, we can use what is rightfully ours. Island Park is our heritage, our ancestry, we are a native and indigenous people, and we will defend her. There is no bond between you and Island Park such as mine.
Part 3 will discuss corridors.
So Long Island Park, Hello Yellowstone Highlands
Although this article is regarding Island Park, every Idahoan throughout the state will be affected by the same agenda.
It must be time to transform Island Park into something else using "action plans". The question is, what needs to be transformed? What in Island Park needs fixing? The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has been working tirelessly for 10 years, inspecting Island Park with partnering "experts", creating a list of "problems" they deem necessary to fix, and then creating a plan to fix those problems "they" identified! This endeavor was for the revision of the State Wildlife Action Plan, or SWAP. These "experts" have identified conservation targets and the "threats" to those targets. The plan focuses on conserving fish and wildlife while helping humans "benefit" those species that need the most "help". This help by humans will be "voluntary" but the true goal is preventing all human activity that might endanger wildlife, and taking private land. Isn't it amazing that in spite of all federal and state agency work, and human activity, these species have managed to survive without these newly suggested efforts to help them, while at the same time managing to cohabitate with humans in healthy enough numbers to be studied in spite of the threats being identified?
The Island Park area is now considered to be part of the Yellowstone Highlands, defined as an ecological subregion by the US Forest Service (USFS), because it comprises the western margins of the Yellowstone Plateau. This is most likely a deliberate choice as one eventual goal is to incorporate the Island Park area into the Yellowstone system, whether in the park itself or the protected lands within the "ecosystem". Currently, this is being accomplished through incremental demand that wildlife should have access to habitat outside of the park perimeter, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wanted with the buffalo, and the Nature Conservancy. It will only be a matter of time before the demand is made that all wildlife have the right to access habitat across boundaries, with Island Park being a target for incorporation into Yellowstone. By the way, the NRDC and Nature Conservancy are both United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO).
Here is a map of all the "ecological sections" in the state so you can check yours out but the Section names might be unfamiliar to you. You will also notice that these Sections cross county lines, which is deliberate.
Now without having to wade through this whole document, here is the Section on the Yellowstone Highlands. But if you do have the time, here is the 1,458 page document that explains everything.
Now Island Park sits right smack dab in a caldera created years ago from volcano activity. This makes it an ecologically significant area. But to the people who have lived there, and still do, the beauty of the area is really in their hearts, it is their HOME, not some Latin specimen. The Section begins by detailing the geographical and ecological aspects of the area, reducing it into nothing more than a dry statistical read that at times might be hardly understandable to the casual reader. Within these pages humans are identified as the terrible souls who are responsible, and at fault, for destroying habitat and wildlife.
The Section notes that housing has "tripled" since 1963 with an "...estimated 150 square miles of currently undeveloped private land...", predicting that it will be altered with more housing in the next 10 years, insinuating that the destruction is the result of private land use. To disrupt or prevent this habitat destruction, the plan targets 5 habitat conservation areas (forest, Aspen, riparian forest, wetlands, Henry's Lake Flat), and for good measure 2 wildlife species, the ungulate and grizzly which face "special conservation needs". These targeted conservation areas include private land. The plan identifies Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), ranging from bees, owls, toads, bats, loons, grouse, wolverines, cranes, swans, down to the tiny duskysnail. These species have associated conservation targets, meaning land. And realistically, there is at least one of these critters on each piece of private land.
Just one warning side note, for the "regionally rare" ungulate, the target is to "...capture the process of ungulate seasonal migration and resource use
through the area as well as more localized species movement. Includes
seasonal, transitional, and stopover habitat." (You know, the ones that stop for a cup of joe on their journey, or may find the habitat favorable and decide to stay awhile). "US Hwy 20 presents a threat to connectivity... (and) potential expansions...would decrease permeability. Rural residential development also poses current and future threats to key transitional habitat in Shotgun Valley, Henry's Lake Flat, and the south rim of the caldera." For those who live in those areas watch out, IDFG or an NGO will be knocking on your door to tie up your land for a "regionally rare" animal.
Through mapping, the plan identifies the Lodge Pole pine as the dominant tree with a sprinkling of Douglas Fir. For locals and just by observation one has to wonder how much it cost to figure that out. But since these trees are homes to the critters, the experts decided the trees provide "low value for sustaining biodiversity", meaning a poor quality habitat. Interesting. Just how did those critters survive so long in this inadequate housing? They go on to mention some of the bushes in the area like sagebrush, chokecherry, and yum, huckleberry. The experts also decided these conifers were encroaching upon the Aspen population. Maybe if the USFS would allow proper thinning this wouldn't happen.
Now what could be worse than Douglas-fir habitats being "threatened by fire exclusion and rural residential development, while mature coniferous forests are most threatened by habitat fragmentation from roads.", citing that " low
–intensity fires maintain a naturally diverse stand composition and structure that benefits a wide range of wildlife...". Prescribed burns have been used for generations by Tribes and ranchers and these experts are just now getting a clue? The USFS was the federal agency that reduced prescribed burning so now a law is needed to allow it again. Where is the logic in any of this? By their own admission "Fire suppression has also greatly reduced the presence of aspen...". So the federal government, once again, has created a catastrophe that has to be fixed with another law.
According to the plan, "Roads can have negative impacts on fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals...", and "...many roads have been gated under the assumption that limited use by “administrative traffic” will not unduly disturb elk and other wildlife. Unfortunately, this assumption is untrue, and even a limited amount of administrative traffic behind closed gates provides more than adequate reinforcement of the avoidance behavior”. That is the IDFG talking, a truck rolling through every month causes animals to avoid the area. Previous closures and restricted access has now become no human access or use. Alleged damage from ATVs, motorcycles, or snowmobiles can be read about in the Section, but most Idahoans know that seasonal changes remove any evidence of casual use, not long term damage, and the habitat is still there.
According to the IDFG, agriculture, livestock grazing, housing development, recreation, and timber harvest are all land uses causing negative impact in the Yellowstone Highlands. To read about all the alleged damage you can go to page 492 in the Section. Also, these "...land uses have fragmented riparian habitat, reducing connectivity necessary for species movements." Once again connectivity is mentioned, it is the theme for all future landscape planning. But it is connectivity for wildlife and habitat, not humans or private property.
Just know, the IDFG states, "This region is a national conservation priority landscape...". The true goal is locking up all the land in that area by increasing restricted use, including private property. "...lower elevation lands in the GYE have some of the most productive habitats, but also face many looming threats, particularly on private lands." The plan also highlights the conservation importance of the Yellowstone Highlands "for maintaining the ecological integrity of the GYE (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem)." This is right where Island Park lies and why banning human activity is so important. This is the same goal for the rest of the state.
For any private land owner who is contemplating a conservation easement (CE), read this document first. It should also be read by those who have already placed their land in easements. Idaho Statute 55, Chapter 21 covers the law regarding CE, while 55-2102(3) states, "...a conservation easement is unlimited in duration unless the instrument creating it otherwise provides." 55-2103 covers CE court actions. CE are nothing more than a tool used by the federal government to shift private land into public land classification. Conservation easements rob the county of revenue, land can be resold to the government for a higher price, and increase property taxes for others. Placing private land into public hands is one major reason CE and land trusts are heavily promoted in the SWAP plan. Protect your rights by understanding the laws, don't believe what NGOs tell you.
The document below gives just a brief summary of corrective action plans to reduce all of these "threats". All actions can be found in the Section link boxes.
The people who worked on this report included multiple state and federal agencies, UN NGOs, Tribes, and Land Trusts. Were the citizens who live in Island Park thoroughly notified and allowed to have input into what is being done to them? Oh, pardon, there was a paltry 45 that provided public input, along with an organized number from participating NGOs, 3 webinars, and one meeting in Boise. At what point will "voluntary" participation become mandatory? For all their hard work, the IDFG will be rewarded by the federal government with more money for their extremism. But what is the true source of this larger landscape transformation?
As a partner to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a UN participant, the US Fish and Wildlife Service implements IUCN objectives, one of which is addressing "threats' to wildlife, habitats, wetlands, etc., and advocating for special land protections.
IUCN categorizes different protected areas. Category IV is Habitat/Species Management Area and best applies to what IDFG has done in their new plan. Since the Yellowstone Highlands is considered part of the GYE, the IUCN Category II also applies, which focuses on maintaining a whole ecosystem. Here is a shorter version of Category II. It all lines up with the IDFG plan.
The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), another UN outfit, has made another aggressive push for this agenda in their "Global Forest Goals" this year, specifically Goals 2.5, 3.1, 6.2, and 6.3. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), has the same priorities.
Here are a couple of other interesting articles on this from CFACT and the Wyoming Daily Independent.
Many of these IDFG "experts" may not appreciate the disclosure and exposure of the truth in this article. There is growing awareness of this agenda along with growing outrage by Idaho citizens. The outrage is knowing a state agency willingly follows UN dictates, partners with UN NGOs to advance UN ideology, implements UN practices over and over which are destructive to our land, while at the same time, advancing UN ideology that the destruction is due to climate change. Idaho citizens are also outraged that the state, and federal government, are using aggressive and covert tactics towards private land and its use, using legal instruments and foot soldiers to take land from Idahoans for their possession, while banning traditional practices and uses through their agencies. To advance this agenda, federal agencies are promoting a growing, forceful regulatory stance with blurring of jurisdictional boundaries.
Idahoans are no fools, they know the land better than any UN or IDFG partnered "expert". Idahoans have been forced to sit by and watch the destruction of our land, private property, liberties, and theft of their land through deception. Rather than working with its own citizens to solve concerns, IDFG chooses the UN and its partners.
It cannot be denied that the federal government partners with the UN to advance and implement its policies which has subsequently trickled down to affect every Idahoan. Need more evidence? In the top right hand column of page 45157 in this 1998 federal register it clearly states the federal government is implementing Agenda 21, and this was just the beginning. It is more insidious now as the term used is "sustainable development". Sustainable development is Agenda 21. The IDFG plan is outlined in Agenda 21, Chapter 15, and now in Agenda 2030 Goal 15. It is not a conspiracy, it is fact.
Idahoans, not just those in Island Park and Fremont county (forget that other name), are encouraged to look at the plan and how it will affect their area under the SWAP Ecological Sections here.
The use of endangered species, including ecosystem and habitat protection, are the means to the end in achieving the goal of putting more land into the federal government hands and force Idahoans out. Don't fall for it! Fight back and say NO when they come to your door. Tell all of them, NGOs and government officials, their hidden agenda is known to you. Know the law. Ask them, where is the law, whether state or federal, that gives them the authority to do this? They will stumble because there is no federal or state law. Do everything you can to make them understand their agenda is not welcome, will not be tolerated, or accepted in your community. Educate them on the truth, and keep educating them until they understand, all the while not complying with their plans.
Do whatever you can to never have to say, So Long, Island Park.
Kiss Idaho Goodbye - The rest of the story
The federal government created a beast, landscape conservation cooperatives (LLC) for wildlife protection, sprouting in 2011 following the "America Great Outdoors" initiative in 2010. No congressional approval came with this, the Department of Interior (DOI) just created it and assigned the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement it. The FWS claims it is "...self-directed partnerships between federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other entities...". Yeah, right.
In the article, Kiss Idaho Goodbye, the discussion centered around only the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC). But that is only part of the story. Here is the rest of the map.
The rest of Idaho will be taken by the Great Basin LCC (GBLCC). Here is the GBLCC Strategic Plan for your southern Idaho area.
Like all of the other 21 LLCs in the United States, GBLCC networks with other LLCs through the Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN). This network is pretty boastful about crossing all boundaries in its work, across state and county lines, and with other countries, in fact sucking up every piece of dirt in the United States. One of their goals is habitat connectivity which includes helping what they think are ignorant animals figure out how to migrate without getting hit by a vehicle, thus requiring their own personal passage. Of course, the LCCN includes the United Nations (UN) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a close partner. What the IUCN promotes, the network delivers to all of their little conspirators.
Another group, the Network for Landscape Conservation, works with the IUCN and National Park Service (NPS), but looks suspiciously like an NPS program similar to FWS.
One section not discussed in the first article was the Salmon Selway which is part of the Trust for Public Land (TPL). TPL partners with corporations, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a UN organization, and Disney, a UN partner. One of its jobs is to protect public lands from going into your hands, let alone allowing you to use them in your area. The other activity they engage in is purchasing land for conservation easements which ultimately tightens the connectivity and puts more land into government hands. Here is an example of their other dirty work in Georgia, buying private property and putting it into the hands of the National Park Service. Incidentally, TPL was founded by a former director of the Nature Conservancy.
Being part of the TPL, the Salmon Selway has been used to "...conserve the most critical private lands...", that is, putting that land into government hands. The map in the link will show you the areas they have stolen from Idahoans.
So the federal government created a system where they could hide themselves behind their partnership with UN affiliated buddies to do their dirty work up front, and create scams to steal more land from Idahoans. What exactly are they doing?
Well, we have to keep going back to the IUCN as the federal government partners with them along with these other treasonous little groups, whether directly or indirectly.
As an IUCN partner the FWS supports funding and implementing ICUN programs, many of which are conservation programs such as conservation connectivity. In this IUCN document, they call these Areas of Conservation Connectivity (ACC), which "...interconnect protected areas and in doing so, they help integrate these areas into wider...landscapes..." (pg 25), which is exactly what the LCCs are doing. Thank goodness it will allow movement of individuals, actual humans, among habitat patches within home ranges (pg 31). The primary objective is to "...conserve and actively manage migratory route connectivity and the underpinning natural habitats..."(pg 32). The LCCs implemented by FWS initiatives are playing "...an increasingly important role in biodiversity conservation and in helping to achieve Target 11 of the CBD Strategy 2011-2020 (pg 40), another UN agenda. The IUCN also believes these areas should be "transboundary" (pg 27), and have had their eyeballs on West Yellowstone with their global conservation movement. Sorry IUCN, Yellowstone does not belong to you. You may have the arrogance to call it a Heritage site, but it is an American site, and as such, belongs to Americans.
In spite of the IUCN claim that there should be "community involvement", the truth is this agenda is primarily driven by the federal government with its UN affiliated groups and foundations. Small communities like Island Park are being terrorized by all of them, the very people who live there, have roots there, and who care most about and understand the area.
But with the new Agenda 2030 Goal 15, much progress is being made to take land away from us, put it into the hands of the UN and federal government, and continue the march towards the dismantling of America.
And these groups call themselves Americans. Being an American while engaging in these activities is a dichotomy for which each of them should search their souls and beg for absolution.
As seen from the full picture, Kiss Idaho Goodbye.
Kiss Idaho Goodbye
Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative
As noted in the previous post America's destruction continues to survive as long as programs are still being implemented that destroy us. For Idaho, not only is there the Columbia River Treaty re-negotiations that will take control of all water resources, there is also another major land take over.
There are a multitude of Idaho non-profits and United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO) that are aggressively pursuing connectivity projects. Essentially the goal is to connect large swaths of land in Idaho's east corner which neighbors Montana and Wyoming. They would love to see this land all locked up into one major landscape of wilderness, for wildlife only.
The High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone (GY), and the land trust partnership group Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOR), are just a few of the organizations that are destructively working to create wildlife corridors in the Island Park area.
Each of these organizations are connected to UN NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy (NC), Wilderness Society (WS), and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Don't be fooled by the new UN addition in red, a disclaimer that unless the organization is in consultative status it does not connote affiliation with the UN. That is flat out not true. And like children playing in a sandbox these groups all play with each other, are interconnected, and overwhelm us with their agenda.
Anyway, here is the map that shows how much land they are after with the Salmon Selway not even included in this discussion. This map is proudly displayed on the WCS website, a trophy of the successful tromping of Idaho.
Quite a bit of money contributes to this takeover. Just the Greater Yellowstone alone has over 10 million dollars in their coffers. Where do they get all that money? Part of it is your tax dollar.
Now your tax dollar goes to this in other ways as well. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) believes in creating wildlife corridors which eventually contribute to connectivity and have spent your money to study it and figure out how many wildlife are affected by collisions. Forget how it has impacted humans. You are even paying your governor to participate in this through the Western Governors' Association (WGA).
But don't forget the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), your state taxes are used for this nonsense as well. Four years ago Idaho Fish & Game honored an ITD Senior Environmental Planner for his success in collectively garnering over 718,000 dollars to study (affectionately known as the Cramer study) where wolverines and bears migrate, and a study to prioritize wildlife collision areas. Here is the 2016 report and on page 6 you can see all the recommended overpasses, underpasses, fencing, traffic calming, and driver warning systems for Highway 20 in Island Park. What is truly remarkable about this is while our Idaho roads and bridges crumble there is plenty of money to spend on figuring out where cars collide with wildlife and put money into building a road for them. And here is the Highway 20 priority map for those animals. Now it makes sense why Idaho registration fees went up and why the current legislature has a huge task in front of them to fund transportation. Those bunnies need a safe passageway.
Now there are many working tirelessly on this so surely it must all be coordinated together. Who else but the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the rescue for connectivity. Established by the Department of Interior (DOI), it is an "international" network to advance collaborative landscape conservation. Here is the amount of land the GNLCC wants to take and a link to the data they have been collecting. Remember, this is the federal government doing it, not some obscure group. There are a multitude of participants, including multiple UN affiliates, making decisions about Idaho.
In a nutshell, the DOI created an organization that promotes these UN affiliated lunatics taking more land away from Idahoans. Originating in 2009 with order 3289, and advancing it with order 3330, then announcing the truth to "develop opportunities to further establish partnerships that benefit Tribes and Federal agencies" in order 3342.
The National Park Service (NPS) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) were granted the privilege of administering the GNLCC in 2010. The implementation plan includes partnerships with land protection NGOs and land trusts, Canada, IUCN, USFS, and the BLM while using the Endangered Species Act to justify its means. Of course they are using your tax dollar to stick it to you, not only in this way but in grants as well, up to one million.
But the truth is, it is just the UN agenda. As a partner to the DOI, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been promoting connectivity for a very long time. As well, the FWS has its own comradery with the UN for migratory species protection. According to Agenda 2030, Goal 15.5, we are assigned the task to "Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats...". Roadkill should certainly be a focus to ensure a natural habitat is protected in a way that it does not cause harm to the animal. As this Agenda 2030 document explains in #33, "We are therefore determined to conserve and...protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife." Look forward to paying for animal roads.
The federal and state governments, as usual, are taking our money and using it against us, turning it over to UN groups for them to implement UN objectives. Can President Trump undo all of this? Or will it take the masses to finally stand up and say no more. How can the tiny community of Island Park fight this off? What are our legislators doing to stop this? Idahoans just continue to see our state being eaten up by government with its UN partnerships.
Kiss Idaho Goodbye.
Wow, there have been many changes since the last post. We have a new President who has promised to restore America to its original foundation. He has moved forward with dropping the TransPacificPartnership (TPP), rolled back the Clean Water Rule, has challenged participation in the Paris agreement which will bind us to Agenda 2030, and placed a hard core critic of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, into the driver's seat.
But, he has also made some questionable decisions. The first is Ryan Zinke as the director of the Department of Interior (DOI). While Zinke has voted in some respects contrary to traditional United Nations (UN) dictates such as endangered species, and has already issued an order to expand access to public lands, he none the less has a track record of promoting land conservation efforts. His activities will need to be closely monitored over the next year.
There are also a few others that will need close monitoring. Will Ben Carson as director of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) move forward with his concerns about the Fair Housing Act? Rick Perry is another questionable choice with his history of promoting Agenda 21 goals. What is Trump thinking? There are others but for now vigilance must remain.
Because of the new administration many links on the posts might no longer be valid. Many of the references to climate change have been removed, but unfortunately the mission to the UN is still present on several agency websites such as the Department of Education. In spite of this new administration it is not the time to stop being vigilant, threats to America's future still exist until such time there is concrete removal of UN influence through federal legislation and agency programs which implement Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. Foundations of UN ideology that have previously been laid are still in place and being implemented.
Ambassador For The United Nations
Multiple non-governmental organizations (NGO), also known as non-profits, promote United Nations (UN) goals and objectives and they have been very successful at it. Our whole society is infested with their ideology. But don't be fooled here in Idaho when a local innocent appearing non-profit presents itself as tho it is advocating for Idaho when it is really advocating for a foreign organization occupied by despots.
As the UN gets closer to the final slamming of the door on the U.S., there is an increased boldness by these groups and individuals proclaiming their true allegiance to the UN. Finally the truth. One such Idaho group, the Idaho Conservation League (ICL).
Rick Johnson, ICL Executive Director, in a May 19, 2016 speech, proudly announced to the audience "You are ambassadors of the wilderness for the United Nations." He lovingly describes his initial involvement with Washington, D.C. elites, meeting in rooms and sharing beers, ultimately devising ways in which Idahoans use of their own land would end as they created ways to take control away. Working for the UN NGO Sierra Club, he open admits becoming "skilled" with "bringing others along". Who? Certainly not Idahoans who want to keep their right to use their land instead of having it locked up in wilderness areas and other conservation gimmicks espoused by the UN, which he presumably learned from his UN buddies. It is highly unlikely that any Idahoan declared themselves as an ambassador to the UN.
In pursuing the Boulder White Clouds wilderness bill he recognized a "polarized" Congress. He failed to see that polarization as a result of his, and others, attempts to take Idahoans right to use their state land. Seeing "collaboration" as a solution, he also failed to understand that those collaborations did not include Idaho citizens. Regardless of understanding that the current President is not popular in Idaho he proceeded with pursuing a National Monument designation to manipulate signing of the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill, titled the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act. His buddy, Rep. Mike Simpson, proudly watched the bill signing by a President who is not liked by Idahoans. How is that representing, supporting, or advocating for Idahoans? Claiming the wilderness is protected by "regular Idaho people", well, that is just dishonest. In reality, if you look for citizens who opposed this bill, all you can find are groups such as bikers, opposing it only because they didn't want a national monument designation. The ruse worked. At least Rep. Labrador got it right, “The truth is, the public will is against this bill.”
The ICL website states it is a "...conservation community working to keep Idaho the kind of special place you experienced as a child..." They are mistaken. Idaho children, prior to the UN taking over, experienced Idaho freely. Free to go into the forest and build huts, splash in springs and streams, ride snowmobiles through the trees, hunt for mushrooms, cut wood for a warm fire, camp in a favorite spot, shoot fireworks celebrating America, float a river, pick some watercress, wild strawberries, or huckleberries, ...FREE, without some person dictating where, what, when, or how they were to enjoy themselves. FREE, to roam and explore, maybe pick some flowers to make a bouquet. FREE, to enjoy and experience their state. Of all those children who were free to experience their forest, does this group see any lasting damage from it? NO. Out of this Board of Directors and staff group, how many of them are Idaho natives? How many are old enough to even remember experiencing Idaho freely? How many "experienced" Idaho as a child?
In a "longstanding partnership" with the the UN NGO Wilderness Society, they helped ICL celebrate robbing Idahoans of their right to use their own land with the Boulder White Clouds Wilderness designation. Joining hands with the UN NGO Nature Conservancy on Idaho projects, they were then rewarded by another UN NGO, the American Planning Association. This is not a demonstration of supporting and protecting Idahoans, it is promoting and supporting the UN and all the cronies that go with it. In just another display of true loyalty the ICL celebrates the UN Earth Day. Have they ever heard of the Fourth of July? Idaho is where their true loyalty should lie. Mike Simpson openly displays himself as a buddy to these traitors, even giving them money. Is there a law that says this is corrupt, a state representative giving donations to a lobby group?
For the future, the ICL plans to take more land away from Idahoans use, restrict your water use and forcing UN climate change into your life with corrupt renewable energy projects, prevent the mining of resources that belong to Idaho, mess with your right to hunt and fish, all the while engaging with their crony UN and corrupt legislators.
Thick as thieves, the UN and its NGOs, thick as thieves. ICL is not for Idaho or its citizens. They are in it for themselves, forcing their UN ideology onto us.
This is too good to pass up.
What exactly is the drive behind gaining control over the ecosystem? How is it that every microscopic detail is captured under a vague title which is ultimately a concept where every detail has to be managed?
Well, the name given to this concept is called ecosystem services. This is a notion that every ecosystem detail "services" humans. Say what?
While the Portneuf River flooded Pocatello several times over the years, 1910 & 11, 1912, and 1944-45, the 1962-1963 flood was "the greatest ever experienced", "with damage estimated more than $10 million", and declared a disaster area. Pocatelloans actively engaged to protect fellow citizens. The flood was sadly far more widespread than just Pocatello.
Following the massive devastation of those floods the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was brought in to build a concrete channel, also known as a flume, that would control future flooding. Debris build up had also been a problem on the Portneuf from various items being thrown into the river, and bank overgrowth, both creating a bottleneck in the flow. Skunk overflow was even a problem on the banks! All of these issues could be, AND WERE, solved with the channel.
Ok, ok, now we know some Portneuf River history. What does that have to do with ecosystem services?
Allegedly in Pocatello, "people", or 95% of "stakeholders" want the river "restored". Ninety people responded out of a population of approximately 54,000. One third of those respondents work for the government, another one third are environmentalists. That makes 30 people in each group, great survey sample. Restoring “the natural water course of the Portneuf was also highly rated" while maintaining flood control. Are you kidding? Look at the historical facts of letting the river return to its natural water course.
Managing Idaho's Landscapes for Ecosystem Services (MILES) is the group behind changing the Portneuf through their "river vision study" and connecting "people to ecosystem services". Perhaps it would be fair to say the citizens in 1962 were very closely "connected" to the river.
Among other definitions, ecosystem services are defined as benefits that humans derive from the ecosystem. Benefits such as food, air, water, and flood control. Flood control? MILES includes raw materials and medicinal resources, and adds disease control. In this organization's mind, ecosystems act as "regulators" that provide the benefits. But what would the ecosystem be without the additional "social" benefits such as recreation, tourism, mental health, aesthetics and inspiration, and spirituality. Of course habitats are also part of these services while protecting the "genetic diversity". Ergo, these "services" must be restored and protected.
Now it just so happens the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) all promote the fantasy of ecosystem services, naming just a few federal agencies. But the real meat of ecosystem services comes from the United Nations (UN).
The notion of ecosystem services arose out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), launched by the UN in 2005. On page 1 the definition is pretty much the same as MILES, noting the "ability of ecosystems to deliver services can be assessed" and that "People seek many services from ecosystems". The MEA separates the services into categories (pg 57):
Provisioning - Products obtained from ecosystems
Regulating - Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Cultural - Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Supporting - Services necessary for production of all other ecosystem services.
Still the same as MILES. Somehow the UN equates ecosystem services (pg 78) to "freedoms and choice" and drivers of ecosystems changes are primarily from local, national, and international groups (pg 90). Those 90 survey respondents represent the "local drivers" regarding the Portneuf.
There are some other interesting aspects to this report. On page 7, "The
relative influence of individual nation-states has diminished with the
growth of power and influence of a far more complex array of institutions,
including regional governments, multinational companies, the United
Nations, and civil society organizations." A reference to the United States and growing UN influence in our government and over our lives? And how about that corporate influence?
And going back to that tiresome UN social justice theme on page 14, "Unequal access to ecosystem services has often elevated the well-being of small segments of the population at the expense of others."
Without going into the excruciatingly painful details of all the UN organizations, here is a list involved in the MEA, including the United States. As previously noted federal agencies, who all partner with the UN, are also engaged in pushing ecosystem services onto us. Plus, Goal 15.1 in Agenda 2030 is to "... ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services...". And of course, the Portneuf River in southeast Idaho has been declared a basin and "watershed" needing restoration.
Of the three Agenda 21 pillars, social, economic, and environment, two are often integrated, social and economic, referred to as socio-economic. As seen here, the MILES program is part of this integrated concept.
Where is the UN influence coming from in the MILES program? One of its funding sources is the National Science Foundation (NSF). And the NSA actively works with UN organizations. Take the money, push the ideology.
Now, this ecosystem services nonsense would not even be an issue if it weren't for the UN. The UN wants us to believe that disasters of all types are lurking around the corner and immediate action must be taken to address climate change to stave off such destruction. Just one more scare tactic the UN lays on us to justify taking control. The notion that there will be increasing floods is nothing more than a bunch of rubbish, there have always been devastating floods. This Department of Interior report discusses far western state flooding in 1964-1965 stating on page A1, "The floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the Far Western States were extreme". And this was after the 1962-63 floods. Now how could that be without climate change, isn't the worst to come? Or maybe it was just the fact that the particular climate activities, in combination with the river itself, was just nature doing her thing? Man, in his wisdom, came up with a workable solution, to build a flume only as the river flowed through the city, leaving the river alone to its forces once out of the city. Now because of the UN it all has to be undone. Let those UN supporters go talk to people who suffered through that flood, it is most likely they will get an earful. Ecosystem services? To serve humans? Those citizens were not served by that flood.
Ecosystem services is a warped falsehood, reversing how humans really care for the environment, we service it. We care for the environment when mother nature becomes destructive, not only to itself, but also to us. If the Portneuf had been allowed to once again run wild after the floods there would have been further massive environmental destruction along with destruction to humans. Pocatello citizens took care of their own, the way it should be, not from outside UN or government influences dictating decisions or how lives should be lived.
If Idahoans believe that the UN has no influence in their lives, it is right at their back door, they had better wake up. Idaho is under siege, it has blatantly been taken over, with more to come.
Water is a major component of ecosystems and inextricably links together every organism. The ecosystem cannot survive without water. Ecosystem water sources include aquifers, wetlands, riparian, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, puddles left from rain, and watersheds.
A watershed is defined as an entire region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water, or an area of land that includes a particular river or lake and all the rivers, streams, etc., that flow into it. It includes all sources of water. A synonym for watershed is basin, the numerous watersheds make up the basin. Idaho has 92 watersheds and your area can be searched here or here.
Ecosystems, by their very nature, are dependent on watersheds for survival. If the watershed, or basin, is impaired, the ecosystem, and every part of it dies.
There are some Bureau of Land Management (BLM) watershed programs in Idaho, the Upper Salmon Basin, Owyhee County, and the Hawley Creek watershed. These projects focused on protecting fish. The Forest Service (FS) also engages in watershed programs such as in Coeur d' Alene. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gets into the watershed act at Tepee Creek and Bear Valley Creek. In a Watershed Restoration Partnership the USFS and BLM gave the Nez Perce Tribe 7.5 million dollars to protect and restore watersheds. Here is a 2011 FS map showing watershed conditions in Idaho and other Idaho watershed programs listed by the EPA.
Idahoans have come together creating groups on watershed issues such as the Henry's Fork Watershed Council and North Fork Coeur d' Alene River Watershed Advisory Group.
The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2015-2020, Objective D focuses on restoring watersheds with a Watershed Condition Framework. This framework starts with classifying watershed conditions, prioritizing for restoration, developing a plan, implementing integrated projects, tracking those projects, then verifying accomplishment. Through their National Best Management Practices Program, the FS also has National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands booklet with extensive information on aquatic ecosystems starting on page 19 and another for riparian areas.
The EPA has a 400 page document for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Management practices include conserving, protecting, and restoring watersheds (pg 231); focus areas in agriculture, forests, and urban areas (pg 233-236, 241); more protective/restrictive practices than state regulations (pg 286); and of course monitoring all land use practices (pg 298).
Notice that most of these plans center around restoration and protection. There is a reason for that.
This FS document outlines its commitment to the UN and Agenda 21 by "Continuing large-scale watershed projects, involving mixed ownership jurisdictions and diverse partners, to achieve sustainable conservation and related development".
In 20011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to protect and conserve the environment, share common goals and objectives, cooperate with other nations to protect the environment globally, support environmental laws and regulatory instruments, with an ultimate goal for transitioning to a green economy. The EPA has a whole program devoted to watersheds as water is a high priority for UN control.
Department of Interior (DOI) agencies such as the USGS and USFWS work with the UN, and the DOI itself belongs to several UN organizations, including international. Commitment to the UN means implementing their objectives. And several UN organizations have objectives on watersheds.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) works with the DOI on an international basis with an international forum on watershed management, page 13.
The World Bank, which actively works with the UN, has been focused on water issues for some time, creating a Watershed Management, Approaches, Policies, and Operations report in 2008, financing watershed projects since the 1970s (ix).
Agenda 21, Chapter 18, is devoted to water. Objectives include assessment and data gathering on water sources, conservation, restoration, and water planning and management, not only through government polices, but internationally as well. Chapter 13 also promotes watershed development.
So it is easy to see how the federal government and the UN have been actively working on gathering the necessary data since Agenda 21 implementation in the United States. Enough data has been gathered to implement watershed plans and seize control over watersheds. If a watershed is restored it must be protected from further harm so keep people out, and if it does not need restoration it must be conserved and protected from harm, so keep people out. These plans are so successful that it has even Idahoans have been duped to engage in the deception.
Bottom line, watersheds are just the beginning of how our water is being pursued for control, serving the UN race to global governance.
It is near impossible trying to narrow down the exact United Nations (UN) version of ecosystem management as the information is a conglomeration of different booklets, articles, and ideas with multiple UN organizations that go on, and on, and on. When tying in the federal government it gets even more complex. So, ecosystems will be taken one subject at a time.
In 2015 Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, came up with this brilliant plan to "restore and protect" sagebrush, the Comprehensive Rangeland Fire Strategy to Restore & Protect Sagebrush Lands. One more joke of an idea. Following this announcement came the Soda Fire which destroyed more than just land, it destroyed species, habitat and private property as well. Now that the UN and federal government have joined hands for ecosystem management, to "control or direct human practices, species populations, and physical environment" as a means to protect ecosystems, sagebrush becomes a specific target because it is an ecosystem link with sage grouse habitat and other native species or grasses. Jewell states, "The plan's landscape-scale approach emphasizes sustainability of entire ecosystems...", while "addressing the spread of cheatgrass." This endeavor intends to "...conserve and protect sagebrush habitat...".
Now it is always interesting to note references of support from individuals for these obtuse plans, in this case ranchers. Jewell should be challenged on this claim, to identify just who those "ranchers" are that support her land destruction policies. The Idaho Cattle Lobby certainly doesn't agree with her.
One group was identified, the Idaho Rangeland Fire Protection Associations, where ranchers form groups to assist with firefighting efforts throughout the state. As important, and far more trustworthy as these ranchers are for protecting Idaho lands, would it not be more wise to let them engage in land practices that prevent fires in the first place? In spite of the years of knowledge these ranchers possess, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) thinks these Idahoans are not competent enough to manage a fire without their blessing. How dare they pass judgement on an Idaho rancher. The claim of "Ranchers backing Jewell’s order..." seems farfetched, it is more suspicious that these groups formed to protect the land from the BLM.
Oregon ranchers videotaped evidence of BLM officials using fire management to destroy land, private property, and animals near Frenchglen, Harney County. These ranchers were helpless to intervene for fear of arrest. Who in their right mind deliberately destroys all of this? Any BLM official reading this is invited to respond on the reasoning for this action.
In Jewell's grand scheme cheatgrass is a targeted ecosystem component because it tends to take over other native species and contributes to fire loads. Once again grazing is targeted as one cause. The BLM generalizes cheatgrass overgrowth to "disturbed" land which can encompass humans, recreational users, or any other reason to keep our land free from our use.
Claims of now using a “science-based” approach is laughable, and just where is the science coming from? By Jewell's own admission, "Many fire rehabilitation efforts have failed in previous decades because federal officials planted the wrong species of the similar-looking sagebrush." Shocker, the feds screwed it up. The Society of Range Management has an interesting article on cheatgrass and grazing in Nevada going back to the 1940's. It was determined that cows and sheep prefer cheatgrass. If cattle were allowed to graze cheatgrass in the spring there was secondary damage to other desired native plants but it also reduced the fire load during the summer. However, "Native perennial grasses can be grazed in the spring, but not repeatedly every year, or excessively in any one year, and the grasses must be given a chance to recover." The article also noted that "...grazing management to reduce cheatgrass as a fuel for wildfires has to include late spring grazing in years with enough soil moisture for abundant tiller growth." In addition, if grazing cheatgrass in the fall is allowed during seed proliferation there is less growth of cheatgrass.
Jewell's botched restoration plan for native plant species is to "solve that problem by using local seeds or seeds from the correct species found at similar elevations and growing conditions." Hello? According to the Nevada article, "No one has been consistently successful with large-scale artificial seedings of native perennial grasses in the face of competition from cheatgrass." However, using herbicide and tillage with cheatgrass competition in 1942 and the 1950's and 60's succeeded in establishing wheatgrass. Maybe this article should be sent to Jewell for "proven" science rather than science out of the UN.
"If ranchers and land managers are going to graze cheat-grass, they must have the flexibility to adjust existing grazing systems to fit the actual forage production on a given year without the expensive and time-consuming preparation of a new Environmental Assessment." A "rest–rotation grazing system" is needed as an asset to address cheatgrass issues. "On Federally managed rangelands the wheels of bureaucracy often have difficulty with changing grazing management systems to fit the exceptional years for cheatgrass production." No, they and the UN really want the land destroyed as an excuse to restore it, control it, and keep us from using it.
"There have been some reports and articles written up about the potential
for reducing catastrophic fires with grazing. There is a lot of opposition against this kind of project, however, from environmental groups. It goes against their philosophy of land management. They don’t want to acknowledge a beneficial use for cattle or this would negate their whole strategy and agenda for removing cattle from public land" (pg 5). Most of these environmental groups are UN non-governmental organizations.
How about putting goats out there, they like cheatgrass? Oh wait, no, let's create a National Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation Area instead!!! This meets the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) strategic plan using the Aichi Biodiversity Strategic Goal C, "To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems...", Target 12 "...the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status has been improved and maintained." Of course, to be accomplished by 2020.
The BLM is proud to use the UN tool "rapid ecoregional assessment" and recognizes the CBD on page 1 of their booklet about the snake river plain.
This is just the beginning of using ecosystem management as an excuse to steal more land from Americans, ban land use, push landowners into cities, and continue destructive land management practices.
Oh no, we can't have any solution that has already been practiced, it has to all be about control of the land in a manner that is the most destructive to all habitat, species, and the land itself. What does Jewell or any other previous Secretary know about managing a piece of land? At some point it will be the luxury of those who control the land to enjoy and use it, and no one else.
Let Idaho ranchers take over and kick the UN and their BLM buddies out.
The Death of Idaho
Columbia River Treaty
With the new United Nations (UN) and federal government grand plan to steal what remains of our land through the ruse of ecosystem management, there is one grand daddy that will take all of Idaho in one fell swoop.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the Columbia Treaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an "international treaty".
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering ..."the basin as a whole, without regard for the international border."
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a "basin" treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
Below is a map of the Columbia River and Canadian dams, the river itself just barely touching Idaho. The Montana Libby dam was agreed to by Canada.
This treaty successfully accomplished the goals of controlling flooding, producing hydropower, and irrigation management. In the treaty, for any potential unresolved disputes, the final decision could be referred to the UN International Court of Justice. How about that, no Idaho citizen has a say in the matter, but the UN does.
In 1995 Canada created the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT). Somehow the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and the CBT refer to the river as the "International Columbia River". The NPCC adheres to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, you know, that UN organization. One CBT goal was to "...promote the social, economic, and environmental well-being in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.", all three Agenda 21 pillars. After GHW Bush signed Agenda 21 (Chapter 18) in 1992, the U.S. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project began in 1994, under WJ Clinton, incorporating the same three pillars. Meanwhile, Canada also promotes sustainable development, aka Agenda 21.
Although the treaty was intended to run in perpetuity one clause allowed both countries the opportunity to give ten years notice, starting in 2014, for unilaterally renegotiating or terminating the treaty. The flood control aspect expires in 2024, unless both reach agreement to extend it. The 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review began in 2010, four years prior to 2014. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), operated by the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planned workshops for public input. Do you remember being invited?
Ok, so what, they are going to renegotiate the treaty. Well, it now goes way beyond that.
Given the belief that environmental and social factors were not considered in the original treaty, being unfair to Tribes and the environment, negotiations must now include those factors. After all, we must remember our loyalty to Agenda 21 and the UN. The gimmick to do such? Ecosystems. All of these groups, agencies, and governments are now going to massively expand the treaty to include not just the river, but the entire Columbia basin. Here is the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review basin map. It clearly shows just how much area they plan to incorporate into the treaty with Idaho obliterated. Click here for larger view.
As explained in the BLM posts, the agenda is now incorporating ecosystems into all decisions. This is the final tool that will kill all sovereignty over state and private land. Every species, habitat, wetland, watershed, river, insect, grass, bush, water drop, and more will need protection...there will be no justification for any one of us to use any land because of ecosystem damage we cause. Plus it gives reason to regulate private land, if you are lucky enough to possess it.
A simple ecosystem definition is "the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit". Others make it more complex in that "...ecosystems themselves represent part of the earth’s biodiversity.", and humans are destroying this biodiversity. In this description there is no mention of humans in the ecosystem environment.
The Department of Interior (DOI), which manages the BLM, USFWS (pg 31), USFS, NPS (pg 19), BIA, and USGS among other agencies, has declared a more effective "mitigation" policy, defined as "...mitigation that includes the “preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC)” of areas destroyed in the name of progress." That means you, human being, you have and continue to destroy land. The effort is "...attempting to establish a department wide mitigation strategy that will protect natural resources as the US prepares for an expected rise in development projects on public land." This references the Resource Theft in the BLM posts, more land confiscation for the federal government to engage in renewable and other energy projects for land and energy control in partnership with foreign countries to redistribute our wealth. Here is the DOI 2014 mitigation strategy update with the cat out of the bag on renewable energy in the bottom paragraph. The BLM is already applying an Ecosystem Services Framework for Land Use Planning. Shocker. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity lists how federal government agencies are implementing their ecosystem restoration, USFS page 76, EPA watersheds page 83, and USDA agriculture/livestock page 85.
The USDA, USFS, DOI, and BLM have been working on identifying the Columbia Basin ecosystem risks since 1997. 107 "layers" of information were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Throughout this document every map shows some type of ecosystem destruction, which means the only way to preserve or restore the basin is to control it. In 2003 these same agencies created a memorandum of understanding to "implement" the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, updated in 2014. The strategy? "A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation". If the reader takes the time to read this document it becomes very apparent that there is no room for any human to use any of this land as it has to be protected or "restored" from human damage. Page 1 lists all the Idaho areas that will be affected. Ecosystems listed include landscape, habitat, forests, rangelands, riparian and other species, riparian areas, and Tribes.
Since 2002 more GIS and Spatial Data have been collected on the basin for the purpose of eventual full control through ecosystem management. Here are the 8 chapters of ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details, including topography, hydrologic, vegetation, landscape, grazing, watershed, riparian, rangeland, ecology, roads, habitat, species, timber, economy, population, and reservations, naming just a few. Now that all of this data has been collected and strategies developed prior to the 2014 renegotiation start date, let the two countries begin talks. And, because the U.S. Department of State has a specific mission to the UN, they support incorporating ecosystem management strategies into the treaty.
All groundwork has been completed to finalize the takeover of Idaho through a renegotiated treaty using ecosystem management.
Agenda 21, Chapter 15 and Agenda 2030, Goal 15 address the need for ecosystem protection and restoration. There is also the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (signed by the U.S. in 1993) which outlines targets for ecosystem management by 2020. Did you read that? 2020, 4 years from now. It would be fair to say they are on the last leg of getting it done. Let's see what else UN wants for ecosystem management.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) envisions integrating ecosystem management into "ecosystem services", providing "specialized expertise" for assessment, management, economics, and governance including international agreements, legislation, and policy. As part of the memorandum of understanding with UNEP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports ecosystem services along with multiple federal agencies promoting the same. UNEP also has several booklets on ecosystem management if you would like to know more.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has an agenda for ecosystem management and created the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 for countries to use as a guide. It can be downloaded to read. UNDP provides "technical and policy advice to governments" while promoting "Ecosystem-based Mitigation of & Adaptation to Climate Change", currently being implemented by the DOI as previously noted. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), of which the DOI is a member, has a special Commission on Ecosystem Management, including a Red List of Ecosystems the DOI can use, plus a transboundary water assessment and management program.
Although not signed by the U.S. or Canada, the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) is recognized as the "most authoritative source of international water law". The UNWC aims to be the global water instrument, the authoritative source of international water law, and create frameworks for water governance arrangements which includes transboundary water and ecosystem protection. If the U.S. signs this convention it will put the Columbia basin under further, and complete, UN rule.
The United States Entity, comprised of the BPA and the USACE, released a document, Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 on 12/13/13, meeting the UN regionalism goal. One noteworthy recommendation is on page 5, Ecosystem-based Function. This is a scheme concocted by the UN, justified by climate change scare tactics, and is really about taking final control over land, resources and humans. It is also called "Ecosystem-based Adaptation", ecosystem based management, and can be separated out into different areas such as fisheries, mountains, and even disasters. This UNEP document gives a convoluted, scattered description of ecosystem based management on pages 4-5, almost as if they were trying to figure out how to justify a way to control everything. All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme (IHP) with one interesting function, "Recommending U.S. programs for participation in the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme.", and there are several programs. What this means for the hydropower generated by Columbia River dams is uncertain. It is difficult to ascertain just how the Columbia River Basin became "international". But, being designated as such, it places the basin under International Waters Governance, as part of the GEF International Waters Governance Project. GEF stands for Global Environment Facility, financed via UNEP. Regardless, it also involves Idaho dams, so it will affect us as well.
In the United Nations World Water Development Report 2016, everything you would want to know about how the UN will control our water is explained. On page 57-58 it describes changing our water use to a "green" economy which means industrializing our agriculture and urban water infrastructure as two examples, using UN business partnerships. This explains the Common Core emphasis on STEM and vocational education, preparing our children for the workforce needs of these industries. Pages 58-61 cover Agenda 2030 Goal 6 and related water goals. The UN will manage water through their Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRM), which the Idaho Water Resource Board follows. Transition to renewable energy investment starts on page 83, addressing hydropower and urban infrastructure, which is why the UN bank partners are buying water utilities in preparation for the takeover. The Idaho Department of Water Resources was given a special mention on this page also. Yes, the UN monitors U.S. and Idaho water. Ecosystems are covered from page 26-28.
The UN believes transboundary waters should be under international rule with focus on the "use, development, protection and conservation of water resources." Since the Columbia Basin has somehow been declared international, it looks like the river is primed for UN take over.
Briefly on the social pillar. As previously posted in the December, 2015 archives on Tribes being used by the federal government to take land and water from American citizens, Tribal rights are not being ignored in the treaty negotiation, including Idaho Tribes. Emphasis on salmon, tribal resources, and culture will be part of the talks, with full UN backing on Tribal water rights.
If all of this gobbledegook has left you bored to tears or brain dead, there is a more simple explanation. The UN wants control of water, and they want it bad as water is the most valuable resource needed for everything.
The intent is expanding the treaty to include the full Columbia Basin, not just the original river. With ecosystem management, defined by the UN and implemented by their federal buddies, public land will not only be affected, but private land as well. The goal is taking basin water resources, from basin water drops to storage, then controlling its use in agriculture, industries, and urban infrastructure, among other uses. Forcing Idaho into a "green economy" means expensive technology will be needed for redesigning water use in all areas, and the federal government taking more land for their renewable energy projects. UN business partners, many of them banks, will be investing in this green technology while the federal government will ban land use and take private land away through regulations causing economic devastation, what they are doing to ranchers. Agricultural farmers will be next. Common Core will educate your child to those new industrial technology needs. The UN has multiple water partners supporting this agenda. Ecosystem data is made available to UN business partners so they can take advantage of energy projects once we are stripped of our land.
Idaho will soon die, there will be nothing left of our state. This will truly be the death of Idaho. The UN controls our forests, government agencies implement UN objectives on our land, our cities are being redesigned by the UN, we are being forced off our land into cities, children are being indoctrinated on UN ideology...there is nothing left but ecosystem management to finish us off. Our water will be taken and controlled, we will be told where and how we can enjoy the outdoors, if at all. Jobs will be determined by UN corporate industries. Yet Idahoans don't listen, state legislators refuse to address this out of the fear it looks like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is right there in front of everyone. And we do nothing. Shame on us, shame on us.
We should be in the streets demanding our legislators remove us from every illegal, treasonous, unconstitutional regulation that each corrupt federal agency forces on us, and demand that there will be no implemented UN objective in our state. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs that if this is not done, we will remove each legislator, and keep going through them until we find one that has the courage, and the love of Idaho, to do as we tell them, not ask, tell them. When will we be ready and have the courage to do this? We have 4 short years, the UN has given us the year. When?
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!