Many may not be aware of an Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) rule that was passed in 2005 regarding how wolf reintroduction in Idaho and other states can be managed. Good information to know if you have a wolf encounter.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has approved changes in the way reintroduced wolves can be managed in Idaho south of Interstate 90 and in parts of Montana.
The new "10j rules" will take effect February 7. The "10j" refers to the section of the federal Endangered Species Act regarding wolf reintroduction in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
The new "10j" rules apply to wolves in Idaho and Montana that are the result of reintroduction in Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996. These populations are listed as "experimental non-essential" and will not be affected by a federal court ruling on January 31 regarding "threatened" wolves north of Interstate-90.
The new rule essentially does two things- it gives state residents more latitude in dealing with problem wolves, and it will eventually give the states of Idaho and Montana more authority to manage wolves.
The new 10j rule applies only to Idaho south of I-90 and Montana (south of I-90 and south of the Missouri River). In those areas, the new 10j rule indicates:
- Anyone may harass a wolf in a non-injurious and opportunistic manner (scaring it and running it off in a way that doesn't hurt the wolf) at any time. Such harassment must be reported within seven days.
- Wolves seen attacking livestock, livestock herding and guarding animals, and dogs on private land can be shot by the landowners without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be evidence of a wolf attack such as dead or wounded livestock, trampled vegetation, and mixed wolf and livestock sign.
- Wolves attacking, chasing, molesting, or harassing livestock and livestock herding and guarding animals on public federal lands can be shot by grazing permittees and guide/outfitters who use livestock as part of their federal land-use permit, on their active livestock allotments, and on public ceded lands by Tribal members, without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be physical evidence of a wolf attack.
- Under some circumstances landowners and public land grazing permittees and guide/outfitting permittees may be issued written authorization to use rubber bullets to harass wolves, or shoot-on-sight permits to kill wolves on their private land or their federal grazing federal allotments.
The new rule also allows the states of Idaho and Montana to petition the USFWS for additional authority to manage wolves. Negotiations are currently underway with USFWS over what specific authorities Idaho Fish and Game will have in wolf management in the future.
Additionally of interest to hunters, the new rule also allows the states of Idaho and Montana to ask USFWS for permission to remove wolves that are having a demonstrated negative effect on deer and elk herds. The states will need to provide scientific evidence of the effect of wolves and engage other scientists and the public in reviewing any proposal to remove wolves. Idaho is currently analyzing data and studying game units in which the Department is receiving hunter complaints and may be showing biological signs of having wolf impacts on elk herds. The USFWS will have the final say on whether or not to accept any proposal from the state.
Eventually state officials hope to see wolves removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act so wolves can be managed and hunted similar to bears and mountain lions and within the guidelines of the State Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. The changes to the 10j rule are a step in that direction.
For the past year, Idaho Fish and Game has been preparing to play a greater role in wolf management so more decisions regarding wolves are made at the state rather than the federal level. Federal funds were used to hire two biologists to expand the Department's ability to trap, radio collar monitor, and manage wolves. Additionally, these federal funds allow biologists and conservation officers from around Idaho to participate in wolf monitoring and management.
While radio collars help biologists keep track of wolves, reports from the public are also important. The department is particularly interested in information regarding wolf pack activity, reproductive activity, and wolves frequenting new areas. Please report wolf activity on the department's website at this link. The report will immediately be sent to Idaho Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Wildlife Services, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Biologists may follow up with questions so the report form should be filled out as fully and accurately as possible.
If anyone believes they have a wolf-related depredation, wolf mortality, or other incident that requires immediate attention, they should contact the local Fish and Game Officer, the nearest Fish and Game Regional Office, the USDA Wildlife Services (1-866-0487-3297) or the Nez Perce Tribe (208-634-1061.)
More complete information on wolves and their management can be found on the Fish and Game website at this link.
The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) held an event in July 23, titled Saving America's Biodiversity and the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act, and included several non-governmental organizations (NGO) and congressmen. Honorary hosts included Sen. Tom Udall, Rep. Don Beyer, and Rep. Vern Buchanan. If there was ever any proof needed to substantiate our government is in the pocket of environmentalists, this is it.
A briefing and panel discussion was held first, followed by a "conservation" with the Honorary hosts, which was filmed and made available on Facebook at this link.
The conversation was about the introduction of the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Interestingly, Rep. Buchanan, a co-sponsor of the bill, was introduced as being "...one of Congress's strongest champions for animals both in the US and overseas". Should an elected official represent animals, constituents, or other countries?
Rep. Udall mentioned that because of Tribes, organizations, and the United Nations (UN) we know we are in a crisis, with the UN saying we are about to lose one millions species, needing more corridors, and because of humans spreading around, need to protect half the earth. As a "collaborative, science based approach", this bill completely leaves out the law and jurisdictional authority. The proper explanation of the bill was given, it gives the federal government authority to designate corridors on "federal land", federal land only. But the eventual goal will be encroachment upon state and private lands, through "aggressive" pursuits by "organizations", meaning NGOs. Working at a regional level, this bill would also create a "connectivity data base" used to make "wildlife connectivity decisions". Nothing like mowing over jurisdictions and property rights.
Rep. Beyer addressed how Tribal, state, and private land owners can benefit from the bill, and claimed it wasn't about regulations or unfunded mandates, but rather creating "pools of money at the federal level that state and local governments...who understand where their corridors are at...with...local non-profits to put things where they should be". He also believes we have a "responsibility" to give habitat back to animals.
Rep. Buchanan spoke to the efficiency of Congress and getting things done. So bipartisanship exists for animal issues but not other more critical issues such as the national debt, budget, immigration, and take over of the health care industry? He stated his focus is "getting a lot of things done for animals".
The moderator referred to E.O. Wilson, who stated the bill provides "...the most important step in...enlarging the nations protected areas...'. Rep. Beyer gave a plug to Wilson's book, Half Earth. This is what this bill is really about, expanding protected, non-use land over half of the earth. He also bragged about starting an "International Conservation Caucus" years ago. Should he be paying more attention to his responsibilities to the United States instead of being "engaged with the world, not just the United States" on conservation? Mr. Beyer also applauded the restoration of Grizzlies and that one can tell if an area is "really wild" quoting Ed Abbey that "It's not wilderness unless there are animals out there that can kill you or eat you". What a horrifically insensitive statement, especially to those who have been maimed or killed by wildlife. Rep. Buchanan at least recognized the danger by citing injuries and deaths from animals but inappropriately attributed it to lack of corridors. Does he not realize that wildlife already have their own paths they follow, their own natural corridors they follow, that are not man made? His claim of an $8 billion dollar loss without corridors sounds pretty exaggerated.
Sen. Udall opened pandora's box when he started discussing the need for states to become involved in this supposedly federal only bill, as corridors cross jurisdictional boundaries, and then moved to the "most local level of government". This isn't a federal issue, it is an issue of justifying the taking of land across jurisdictional boundaries for the sake of creating corridors, which already exist. Wildlife doesn't know it crosses boundaries, leave it alone, don't make it a man made corridor, and let state and local jurisdictions manage their land where wildlife cross. He openly admits this bill "empowers" the federal government to "work with all the other actors". Mr. Udall, elected representatives are not actors. Rep. Beyer then expounded upon the beauty of the wolf and needing corridors to increase their numbers. Sen. Udall also admitted that this is nothing more than an effort to "make corridors". All three are die hard climate change believers, and they are going to partly fix it with corridors. Oddly, Sen. Udall sees animals as part of our community and should be treated as such. No Mr. Udall, animals are wild, not humans.
There was also a brief discussion about how border structures interfere with wildlife movement between countries.
This is the mindset of elected officials, working with other countries, ignoring constituents, and devising ways to take land from states and property owners. If this bill passes, which it most likely won't in spite of their confidence it will, it will be advancing the agenda of NGOs and government.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals.
Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel.
The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use.
Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types.
The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention.
If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land.
WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening.
Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030.
Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint.
The Conservation Finance Network ((CFN) "advances land and resource conservation by expanding the use of innovative and effective funding and financing strategies" and supports "a growing network of public, private and nonprofit professionals through practitioner convenings, intensive trainings, and information dissemination to increase the financial resources deployed for conservation." This initiative "grew out of a pilot workshop envisioned at Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2006 and held at Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies in 2007."
Not only do non-governmental organizations (NGO) contribute and support the CFN, your tax dollar also contributes from the US Forest Service, US Department of Defense, and US Department of Agriculture.
Under the Menu there is a Topics category that brings up all of the issues they are involved in from Forests to Public Policy. It may be that they have the ability to fund any conservation activity they want, regardless of local citizen input.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) recently held their 2019 Annual Meeting in Vail, Colorado, in which Governor Little was a participant. One of the activities included the relaunching of the Western Governors' Foundation which "is to leverage Western Governors’ influence to raise and deploy resources that collectively impact issues of regional importance", essentially further diminishing Idaho state sovereignty. You gotta love this foundation description, "leverage collective influence". Sovereignty has now been replaced with collectivism and redistribution of money through regional "philanthropy".
Another new initiative will be the "Reimagining of the Rural West" that will "will examine challenges and opportunities in rural economic development, infrastructure and quality of life, identify best practices, and recommend policies to support vibrant rural communities in the West." The three major "pillars" are opportunity for policies to leverage strengths in energy, agriculture, and tourism; connectivity for broadband and other infrastructure challenges; and lastly community to ensure rural areas have access to all of the elements of a strong community, including healthcare, affordable housing, quality education, and local leadership. A survey of 115 people was used to identify these priorities. Since when does a group of governors decide how we manage our communities? Access to local leadership? What does that mean?
But lastly, the most concerning subject the WGA revealed was a resolution on wildlife migration corridors and habitat. WGA has bought the non-governmental organization (NGO) mantra that "...migratory routes...can be impeded, degraded or eliminated by land or resource development", that wildlife overpasses are the only solution, and they should work with the federal government and NGOs to promote the creation of corridors.
Idaho is and will continue to be targeted for creation of wildlife corridors from the federal government, NGOs, state government, foundation funding, and a regional collection of governors. At some point Idahoans will have to take a stand and demand that our sovereignty is taken back and it will be Idahoans that make decisions for our state, that no other state or group has any say in those decisions, that we do not believe in collectivism, and do not want our tax dollar funding other states. That point in time is now, there is no longer any time to wait.
While Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) would like everyone to think the world will end if migratory corridors are not established, and money is being spent to chase down "ungulates" for the purposes of putting GPS collars on them. the truth is they are creating corridors, not identifying them.
Jody Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, is making money off this scam with two books she wrote with others, called Corridor Ecology. In this Conservation Corridor summary it states the book contains, "Evidence that supports the use of corridors as a conservation strategy...", and explains "...the multitude of approaches and tie the modeling process into the overall process of designing corridors." And finally, "...we provide guiding principles as well as opportunities and challenges to implementing corridors...". They aren't trying to find out where wildlife migrate, they are creating corridors for their large landscape design and land takeover.
Even a review on Amazon states, ""The great value of this book lies in the varied examples and in the models, which show the problems and conditions of corridor establishment and the factors related to designing a corridor. The book will inspire the creation of corridors, and explains how to design one and how to take greater advantage of it."
Since these corridors are for the purposes of conservation, what does that mean? The definition of conservation is "a careful preservation and protection of something especially, planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect." No matter how they frame it, the bottom line intent for corridors is no use of the area. That is what corridors are really about, it has nothing to do with wildlife being fragmented.
Y2Y is also a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This IUCN booklet, Linkages in the Landscape, The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation, outlines how land should be configured or designed for corridors. This is one model Y2Y is using as an IUCN member. IUCN also has a global policy for their objectives.
Never let Y2Y try and convince you they are not part of this agenda. It is all fact.
Another talk by Jody Hilty, Yellowstone to Yukon President and Chief Scientist, reveals a rather disturbing picture of a false narrative of information. Ms. Hilty either has chosen to deliberately misrepresent the truth, or lives in some sort of fantasy world.
In this Scaling Up Webinar, Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, November 14, 2017, Ms. Hilty covers a variety of issues from both Canada and the U.S., skipping back and forth between the two countries.
In the standard Y2Y mantra, she declares wildlife need "room to roam" which usually means at the expense of where people live and their use of land in all forms. What is so ironic when describing how a Wolf traversed between Canada and the U.S., there is ongoing claims that animals are unable to survive without connectivity, taking more land for protection so they can migrate. Isn't that what the Wolf was doing without the Y2Y connectivity agenda? And while the Wolf doesn't recognize the boundary between the two countries, she fails to understand that these two countries do have jurisdictional boundaries between them, which supercedes what any Wolf may understand.
Blanket descriptions are given for historical ranges for Grizzlies, without any factual verification. However, this is deliberate as Y2Y intends to use Grizzlies as an umbrella species. Throughout the webinar, Ms. Hilty repeatedly states, "science says", not understanding that science is not a person, it can't think or speak. In her "collaborative" description, elected officials and local citizens are not included.
At the 19:20 mark, the Crown of the Continent that engulfs ID/MT/Canada, a path for Grizzlies is created on conjecture that it must be protected based on potential genetic problems. Next is the Cabinet Purcell area with ID/MT/BC involved, and three Grizzly "corridors" for connectivity, and work with land trusts to take land with conservation easements by Vital Ground, stopping development. Central Idaho is also targeted for artificial placement of Grizzlies at the 22:50 mark, manipulating wildlife so we can "live" with them, not recognizing how dangerous, and unethical that is.
A Y2Y workshop was held with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) in March, 2017, to convince them to include wildlife overpasses in their transportation projects, referencing Hwy 20. Interestingly, ITD never fessed up to this, instead letting IDFG take the heat for their partnership with Y2Y. While Ms. Hilty claims the community was "super engaged", the truth was the community was strongly opposed to these overpasses, and it was only a Y2Y created front group that was supporting that objective.
Ms. Hilty claimed "huge threats of growth" and people "gobbling" up land instead of living in high rises at the 31:20 mark. And just where do you live Ms. Hilty, in a high rise or in your own house gobbling up land? She thinks protected areas are being "ringed with development". That is clearly not true. None the less, she calls these "gateway" cities and the plan is on for going in and telling these cities how they should live, holding Mountain and Resort Town Planner Summits.
The National Park Service (NPS) was part of this webinar as a deep partner with Y2Y, having some questions for Ms. Hilty at the 40:45 and 44:20 marks. More talk about growth sprawl came at the 50:05 mark, and getting elected officials to buy in to landscape conservation at the 53:30 mark. Ms. Hilty supported giving officials a "safe" place to support conservation and cited Sen. Risch and his work with the Scotchman's Peak group, never mentioned it was the vast opposition to his wilderness bill that defeated his alliance with them.
Listen to the webinar and learn more about all the work Y2Y is doing to spread their propaganda.
Both foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are pushing forward with new strategies. As much as possible, everyone needs to stay on top of their new direction. What had been more of a laid back, nobody challenges us attitude, has now become more of an offense because of the challenges laid at their feet by citizens, and they are proceeding with more deceit and lies.
Slowly, NGO members have been slipping themselves into governments, getting themselves elected, in order to influence policy. In every election, detailed scrutiny of each candidate must be conducted for any involvement in NGOs and exposed to the public.
There has also been a massive commitment from multiple foundations to increase the amount of funding to these groups, the sole purpose is only taking land away from citizens, and only to have it placed in protection with non-use. Never doubt that. The amount of land they now want to take, originally around 20-30%, is now 50%, and that includes a combined takeover of both Canada and the U.S.. This agenda comes from the International Union of Conservation for Nature (IUCN) and was promoted by Harvey Locke, one of Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) founders.
On this website, Nature Needs Half, you can find areas they want to take in Canada and the U.S., and Y2Y is involved with both objectives. The International Union of Conservation for Nature, Harvey Locke, Foundation Earth, and Wild Foundation are on the steering committee, while Gary Tabor from the Center for Large Landscape Conservation is one of the advisors.
The Hewlett Foundation outlines the new strategies pretty well, the same strategies can be found in new NGO jibberish, and they are implementing those strategies.
Hewlett identified oil and gas development near wildlife corridors and protected areas, water scarcity, residential development, agriculture, insufficient funding for conservation, and lack of constituencies for conservation as some of the risks to ecosystems. They find gains have been less than what was expected, and progress halted, undone, or threatened with reversal. This is the background for their new strategies.
Their focus has now changed to public policy as primary for advancing their outcomes. Therefore, they intend to focus on "community-driven, collaborative" solutions, which means getting more people to join their bandwagon, rather than "securing federal public land policy and protections" which is what they have been trying, instead going after state and local policies. Funding for this agenda have already begun, "building capacity" is what they call it.
NGO work was acknowledged with conserving 198 million acres since 2013. But for them it wasn't enough. So, now the focus will be partnerships with Tribes and rural communities. "Conserving working lands" means duping land owners into engaging with them and adopting their sick forms of land management practices. Another tactic will be targeting local land-use planning, and securing new policies at a local level. For every local government, they will be knocking at your door to get new ordinances in place for their objectives.
A new phony ploy will be tried, called Rural Perspectives on Western Conservation, they will pretend to listen to you, falsely giving a perception of interest, using the Jemez principle to manipulate you. Notice this is more reflective of a democracy, not a Republic, to "change from operating on the mode of individualism to community-centeredness." Collectivism, how Communistic is that? All efforts to place land into protection will continue as this new ploy is implemented.
New efforts will be targeting state policies in the U.S., an agenda already started by the Network For Landscape Conservation. Funding for this agenda has already started pouring in. Building and enhancing collaboration and strengthening partnerships will be a new focus as well, but how can this be strengthened when they are already one with governments that will achieve policy changes? At least this is the case in the U.S.. Supporting civil litigation doesn't seem to be a immoral activity for them either.
Starting on page 15 are focal areas for Canada and the U.S.. Anyone who lives in those areas should take note, keep an eye out for these new tactics. Don't be fooled by them, it is a mind game they intend to play on you.
While George Soros is known to heavily fund progressive agendas, there is another billionaire whose goal is to fund environmental causes, Hansjörg Wyss. A native of Switzerland who now lives in Wilson, Wyoming, Mr. Wyss made his fortune in medical research and his medical device manufacturer Synthes.
Mr. Wyss created the Wyss Foundation for philanthropy, conserving land as a primary focus, and millions of dollars have been given to non-governmental organizations (NGO) for that purpose. So invested in this goal, last year Mr. Wyss dedicated $1 billion to save the earth through his Wyss Campaign for Nature program. The end objective is to "...help conserve 30% of the planet by 2030"...with "...lands and waters..." protected best through national parks and wildlife refuges. Under the falsehood that Mr. Wyss claims this protection agenda is best if "driven by folks who live in these communities", he is actually referring to all the minion NGOs that are recipients of his money. Wanting to stay in the action, Mr. Wyss himself is on the governing council of the Wilderness Society.
What does this have to do with Idaho? The stated Wyss Foundation purpose is giving "donations to grassroots organizations that work to protect open spaces on public and private lands" in the United States, including the Rocky Mountains. Hmm, that makes Idaho a primary target. All of the following NGOs, along with many others not mentioned, received money from the Wyss Foundation for that purpose.
It is always fun to find out what is really happening by looking at tax forms. In this case, the Wyss Foundation tax forms reveal interesting information. Most of the foundation tax forms show heavy investments in all years for profit, and list assets over $2 billion dollars from at least 2014.
As early as 2001, the Idaho Conservation League (ICL) received a $75,000 donation as seen in the Wyss 2001 tax form. Another benefactor was the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), known for targeting Idaho land for protection, in the amount of $100,000. The Nature Conservancy of Idaho received $30,000, and the Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA) located in Boise received $40,000. While the WWA presents itself as an advocate of snowmobiling, it is really about advancing the dictatorship of where snowmobiling is allowed, and influencing forest service decisions for non-use. WWA is also a partner with ICL and corporations,
During the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, ICL received a total of $1,189,000 in donations while GYC acquired $1,155,600. In 2008, the Bureau of Land Management even received a donation of $999,000. Federal agencies can accept donations? Multiple other NGOs received donations during these and the following years.
In 2010, the Wyss foundation lists total assets over $136 million. ICL received $202,800 and the GYC $75,000. A $4 million plus loan was given to Western Rivers Conservancy for land acquisition, having succeeded in past acquisitions along the Salmon river, and having current Idaho targets for acquisition. Remembering The Nature Conservancy (TNC) business is land acquisition through conservation easements, and who are very active in Idaho, an astonishing amount of $14,442,400 was given to The Nature Conservancy of Montana.
By 2014 net assets for the Wyss foundation were over $2 billion. ICL benefited in the amount of $190,000, GYC $127,800. Western Rivers Conservancy received an alarming $6,100,000. The Trust for Pubic Land took a loan from the foundation for $906,000, in which the Bureau of Land Management partners for purchasing land for "recreational" access, or retiring resource extraction. TNC received a donation of $44 million!
2015 and 2016 donations from Wyss included Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and Trout Unlimited, each receiving $52, 800. Mr. Wyss must believe in donation recipient equality to some degree, but other NGOs received so much more.
In 2015, the Wyss tax form lists the two largest program related investments made by the foundation were in conservation land holdings for over $76 million. TNC received a whopping $9,237,734,000, Trout Unlimited $250,o0o, and the Western Rivers Conservancy $1 million. Looks like there was not enough money left for ICL or GYC this year.
According to the Wyss 2016 tax form, ICL was given $177,600. The 2016 tax form on the ICL website, dated 10/1/16 to 9/30/17, lists the Wyss donation as $125,000, with large contributions from other foundations. For the ICL listed 2015 tax year, 10/1/15 to 9/30/16, there is no listing of contributions by Wyss or other foundations. To validate the intertwined relationship, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Program Director Kim Trotter is listed as one of the a ICL Directors.
In 2016, TNC held loans of over $4 million dollars for inholding acquisition. Basically inholdings are private land near wilderness areas that "fragment" federal ownership, so the land is bought to eliminate the fragmentation, making federal land ownership more seamless. A full explanation on wilderness inholdings can be found here. That's right, a way in which to beef up federal land ownership, but this is not to suggest why TNC inholdings are acquired or how they are used. However, land bought by TNC through Wyss donations is then owned by Wyss, or sold to the federal government.
In 2017, with assets over $2 billion dollars and heavy investments for profit, with a couple TNC loans amounting to over $3 million dollars for land acquisitions, the Wyss tax form lacks in individual contributions made to NGOs. The 2017 tax form isn't available on the ICL website and tax forms prior to 2014 have to be requested. What are they hiding?
For Idahoans who are members of ICL, they might be interested to know ICL is selling Idaho out to to a foundation that wants to do nothing more than fund land takeovers. More appalling is the amount of money being poured into multiple NGOs for the same purpose, provided by a narcissistic man who believes he can own the planet, and our government doing the same.
For these NGOs that tout the need to protect land for "future generations", this concept is not original. America's founders understood man's greed and built our Republic on a foundation that was intended to protect our freedom and property rights. It is time for all Idahoans to meet with their county and state representatives and create laws that protect Idaho land from these threats. Don't squander the gift we were given, rather make good use of it.
Although not completely confirmed, it appears the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) may be on the way out, partially due to lack of continued funding. In a scramble, how will these partnerships between non-governmental organizations (NGO), federal agencies, state agencies, and land trusts continue as a large network to accomplish their large landscape conservation goals?
There are several organizations picking up the pieces and their amassing may be a bigger threat to us than the LCCs. They are reorganizing and in doing so are becoming more aggressive. Everyone needs to become familiar with these organizations, where they do their work, their goals, and who the individual players are.
One of the most concerning is the Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC). Partners include the usual, federal agencies, Western Governor's Association (WGA), and large NGOs. At the helm is Director Gary Tabor, an IUCN participant, Senior Conservationist Rob Ament, and Renee Callahan who promotes public policy. Because public funding for LCCs is drying up, CLLC has now created a "fiscally sponsored" project, the "catalyst fund" to bring in those desperately needed dollars.
Although the catalyst fund was set up by the Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC), Jonathan Peterson from the CLLC is the fund manager. The NLC coordinating committee includes members from the Heart of the Rockies, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), National Park Service, Nature Conservancy, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Wildlands Network, land trusts, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, and Gary Tabor. A full list of all NLC partners can be found here, and it ain't pretty. Suffice to say, both CLLC and NLC are pretty much the same individuals and groups.
The catalyst fund is a "five-year national grant program to "accelerate the pace and practice of collaborative conservation at the landscape scale", funded by foundations. While they claim land conservation is "community-grounded", it is well known they mean their NGO partners, not local citizens, and "building capacity" is meant to increase their strength in numbers.
Led by Rob Ament, CLLC has an even more aggressive plan, targeting state legislators and agencies. In order to advance their, and other NGO connectivity goals, the target will be integrating their wildlife corridor agenda into legislation and policy. The WGA already conspired against us with the 2008 Wildlife Corridor Initiative, being used by the CLLC as one justification for their corridor agenda. And why wouldn't they, CLLC served on the WGA working policy groups that led to wildlife policy initiatives in 2010 and 2013, with multiple other NGOs serving as part of the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (pg 8) for initiative implementation. Data collection and mapping were also initiated as part of the agenda. Wildlife corridors are not the end to the saga, eventually there will be mandates for ecological corridors, biodiversity corridors, habitat corridors, riparian corridors, practically any excuse to create one, which will eventually suck up all land for restricted or banned use. In other words, control over land use, and people.
Returning to the Wildlife Connectivity document, CLLC has developed strategies for integration of their objectives into state legislation and policy. The truth is, CLLC has already decided where these wildlife corridors should be in Idaho and will lobby for the appropriate legislation, as well as having their Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) buddies put them into policy. On page 2 is a map of priority areas, one of which is the US 20/SH87 Complex, which was used as an attempt to build overpasses for their corridor plan. Idahoans in other priority areas are encouraged to take note, the same will be tried in your area. As can be seen, attempts to create wildlife corridors are already being conducted.
There is nothing in the IDFG 2018-2021 Strategic plan for wildlife corridors or connectivity, this is one policy CLLC will want changed, along with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) for integration of wildlife corridors. Following are a few of those CLLC strategies.
"Delegate a state agency to develop...a wildlife corridor identification process, using "best available science" for criteria. As previously noted CLLC has already identified the corridors and developed their science for identification, it is already a done deal. IDFG employee Gregg Servheen, Wildlife Program Coordinator, has been in on this from the beginning, to suggest delegating a state agency for this agenda is ludicrous. NGOs will lobby legislators to "establish state policy to guide the management of identified corridors". But as seen above, there will be no need for guidance, it will be convincing legislators to put their already determined management into legislation.
"The state agency responsible for this program should have the autonomy to evaluate and apply site-specific management and work cooperatively with stakeholders. In addition to state agency-initiated corridor identification, the legislation might also include a process for the public to submit a petition to designate a corridor." IDFG will be the state agency since they are already involved, and are already autonomous as an executive agency overseen by a Governor appointed commission. Since wildlife have already been "...declared to be the property of the state of Idaho", that leaves Idahoans out of any decisions. The petition rubbish is for NGO members to create, giving a false appearance that there is public support for this corridor agenda. It has been done by them before on other issues, and is another reason for the capacity building.
"Legislators can require relevant state agencies to conduct statewide connectivity analyses using the best available science." Connectivity studies have already been conducted on wildlife linkage areas on Idaho roads and by American Wildlands. Wildlife corridors are used as linkage points between existing protected areas for connectivity.
"State legislation could include a provision that directs a state’s wildlife authority responsible for the SWAP to develop a revision that formally recognizes habitat connectivity as a priority as well as includes actionable management items to identify and conserve wildlife corridors." CLLC knows dang well IDFG is responsible for SWAP which is considered a "living" document that can be updated as new data becomes available, how convenient for the CLLC agenda. While connectivity is currently addressed in different SWAP sections, it is yet to be a priority, which is a CLLC goal.
"State agencies governing the management of wildlife, transportation, and energy should be required to develop BMPs for habitat connectivity. In areas where habitat corridors have been identified, these BMPs should be legally binding to ensure that habitat connectivity and wildlife movement are preserved." "State legislators could direct relevant state agencies to develop BMPs to protect habitat connectivity and wildlife movement for all activities permitted on state lands that are likely to otherwise result in environmental harm." Another area that has already been implemented between IDFG and ITD, and enhanced through the ITD Ecological approach agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, which just happens to be a CLLC partner as well. Once again Rob Ament and Gregg Servheen are involved.
"There are many potential policy approaches to encouraging conservation action on private lands. The most well-known approach is a conservation easement...". Within the McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor aggressive action has already taken land for easements by federal and Idaho agencies in partnerships with NGOs. Forever prohibiting land use is the goal with wildlife corridors.
"Authorize state agencies to institute public-private partnerships...fund state programs to engage citizens in citizen-science projects...that need additional data for decision-making around connectivity policymaking...request information from citizens...to help inform where wildlife corridors exist...". IDFG is already moving towards corporatism, aided by federal legislation. The "citizen-science" actually references the IDFG Idaho Master Naturalist program which partners with Y2Y, and since the data has already been collected for connectivity corridor linkages, the stage has been set to feed it to legislators. Other data collection is already in place through the IFWIS, a member of NatureServe, with a special category for land management and conservation which is not accessible to the general public. The Great Northern LCC already created the Decision Support System (DSS) called Data Basin, in which Gregg Servheen participated with his "best science".
There is a rather large section in the connectivity document for wildlife corridor funding through general fund appropriations, constitutional amendments, federal and foundation initiatives, and conservation banking, claiming that all of this enjoys "wide citizen support". They mean themselves.
In addition to analyzing how he could interject his agenda into federal policy, Rob Ament also reviewed federal policy progress for connectivity. Since there is increasing federal support for wildlife corridors via Sec. Zinke Secretarial Order 3362, and the reintroduced Wildlife Corridor Act, Mr. Ament may be right. The Sierra Club helped write the legislation, along with other NGO support (Y2Y, ICL, GYC among them).
The truth is, CLLC and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) have already created the "best science" to justify where wildlife corridors should be in Idaho, it is just a matter of telling legislators and IDFG where they want them, without consideration of Idaho citizens, or local jurisdictional authority. However, since IDFG was paid to inform the public, one should assume Idahoans already know. Mentioned in the NWF document are "Proposed wildlife crossings", one way in which corridors can be created using exaggerated wildlife vehicle collision data.
It is never about land protection or conservation, it is about taking control over land use. Citizens in Ventura, California understand this as they fought land use restrictions with their wildlife corridor, and lost. Not only do their restrictions involve rezoning 30% of land, it also devalues the land, destroys the agriculture sector, and increases fire risks. For all Idahoans, let this be a lesson to learn if wildlife corridors are imposed, the same set up for this garbage is in play here.
Idaho does have a statute that is suppose to protect private property rights in local land use planning, however NGOs are already taking a look at local zoning and land use ordinances for conservation design changes. Idahoans may want to consider working with county commissioners to integrate a ban on wildlife corridor designation in local land use policies before the NGOs get to them.
Potential NGO lobbyists for this CLLC agenda include Rialin Flores, Conservation Voters for Idaho; Suzanne Stone, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW); Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League (ICL); Brian Brooks, Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF); Willam Whelan, The Nature Conservancy (TNC); and Michael Gibson, Trout Unlimited (TU), all of which, except one, are Y2Y partners, which partners with CLLC.
Yep, no need to worry folks, just sit back and relax. NGOs, individuals, and the government have this all figured out for you, where you can live. how you can use your private property, and how Idaho should be reconfigured for animals. Representation by local officials is no longer needed so don't worry about practicing self-governance, or functioning as a Republic, there is no conspiratorial shadow government operating here, or a deep state. Local county authority over land use has and will continue to be completely obliterated by these well thought out agendas, especially when the legislature has been infiltrated by NGO representatives. It is all transparent.
Perhaps we would all be wise to remember the sacrifices made by our Founders, who so deeply understood tyrannical governments, and the price of freedom. At what cost is freedom?