he current president has been hell bent on forcing America into a renewable energy waste bin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is more than happy to participate. But the rush is on because the solar energy plan must be accomplished by 2035.
BLM land has been littered with solar panels since 2012. Because of this current president and his plan to “transition” America to renewable energy, the BLM has been working on updating its 2012 Solar Energy Development plan that involved six states. Now, along with four other states, Idaho is getting sucked into the mix. All of the documents pertaining to this agenda, which BLM has obviously been working on for months, can be found here. Graciously, the BLM has offered the opportunity to go through thousands of pages of information to understand how Idaho will be impacted along with the other four added states. Idahoans have been blessed by the BLM with the opportunity to “Provide input on the 5 action alternatives – including elements from all alternatives to be adopted in a Final Plan” by April 18th. There doesn’t appear to be a “no action” alternative. Aside from the gobbledygook in all of the documents, the amount of reading required to go through all of the documents far exceeds what is reasonable. It is insulting how the BLM presents this for input. Cliff notes on the alternatives can be found here, and overall updates here, The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement can be found here, all 538 pages. For those who really have a desire to go to sleep, there is the agonizing redundancy on Areas of Special Concern with only 760 pages, where one can wade through page after page to find something specific to Idaho. These are the proposed alternative areas to litter with solar panels in Idaho. All of the documents can be found on the National NEPA Register page, Input can be provided via the green Participate Now buttons, or on this page. Be patient, it takes a minute to load. It is bad enough the way in which the BLM abuses its power by tossing this out to Idahoans with no chance of receiving adequate input. Governor Little is no better, his cronies and corporate sponsors at the Western Governors Association (WGA) have supported this endeavor for years. Did he let Idahoans know? It is only going to get worse with the WGA decarbonization agenda. Since the BLM obviously doesn’t have the skill set to place solar panels, just only providing the land, which corporation will they choose to cozy up to, and financially benefit from, to get the job done? Perhaps one it is already friends with? As a signatory to the International Solar Alliance (ISA) “to accelerate global adoption of solar energy”, the United States receives support from the ISA “by helping to expedite solar deployment.” Sounds like a military exercise. Yes, the U.S. is eager to be part of “Green Grids Initiative (GGI) One Sun One World One Grid’ operating in the U.S., thanks to its National Grid Partners. And it will benefit Brandon’s friends as well. Returning to the BLM, just understand this expansion of solar panels on public land is being driven by the dark side of the government that everyone now lives under, corporatism. and also achieves the goal of reducing the amount of land that Idahoans will have access to for beneficial use. Idahoans should feel lucky the BLM has chosen to once again use the lawful process to placate the masses.
0 Comments
It may be confusing to understand how a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposal in Montana, the Missouri Headwaters Conservation Area (MHCA), has anything to do with Idaho. Rule one, understand that federal agencies share the same ideological bed with non-governmental organizations (NGO). Rule two, they all share the same objectives and mission. And Rule three, not only is there government money, actually your tax dollar supporting them, millions of dollars are pouring in from other sources with the same dogma. So the map of the proposed MHCA area extends north to Deer Lodge, east to Ennis, not quite reaching Wyoming, and south to the Montana-Idaho boarder that captures the tip of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controlled Centennial Mountain range. As the fact sheet suggests, the objective is to acquire land, 250,00 acres of conservation easements, for the purposes of protecting wildlife habitat, open space, connectivity, and wildlife migratory corridors, but not property rights. Think of corridors as roads for wildlife that lead them to the next habitat area. In the imaginary world of environmentalists this is called connectivity, in that the corridor, or road, leads, or "connects" wildlife, to the next habitat. Isn't that brilliant? Those same individuals also believe humans are nothing but car wrecks in the path of these animals, preventing them from getting to their next habitat. Thus, the need to take land and control it for wildlife and nature. There are a couple of mother ships for NGOs, the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) which is international, and the Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC). NLC partners with CLLC, the USFWS along with several other federal agencies, and other supporters. Other partners to both outfits are NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Wildlands Network, and Wild Montana. NLC also partners with the Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HORI), which is a group of land trusts in Idaho and western states and Canada. In turn, HORI collaborates with a conservation partnership called the High Divide Collaborative (HDC). HDC partners with government agencies including the USFWS, CLLC, Centennial Valley Association (CVA), several land trusts, and other NGOs. HDC works on a defined area called the High Divide. As can be seen by this map of the High Divide, the proposed MHCA is swallowed along with Idaho land, the whole area ripe for control by HORI and HDC. However, this pales in comparison to the larger land objective held by HORI according to this map. Remembering all of these organizations isn't crucial. Just understand that it is one big syndicate family that is bound and determined to undermine land use and property rights, and leads all the way to the United Nations affiliated International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that includes the USFWS and other federal agencies, the CLLC, and Y2Y. In fact, the CLLC President Gary Tabor works with the IUCN. These groups consider land as a garden for them to design, which includes restrictions on use. One funder for this agenda is the Wilburforce Foundation which granted $75,000 to Wild Montana in 2023 for use in the Y2Y program in Wilburforce priority areas, one of which is in the MHCA. Other donations included $250,00 in 2022 and 2023 to HORI. The CVA is "friends" with several of these groups (last page) and has received donations from HORI. One larger funder is the Wyss Campaign for Nature which has donated to Y2Y and the Idaho Conservation League.
USFWS claims the plan is to "acquire up to a proposed 250,000 acres of conservation easements, with no fee title acquisition, within the proposed 5.7-million-acre Conservation Area boundary", using federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money. It even has a "realty team" for this purpose. The USFWS can then plop that land right into the hands of their HORI land trust buddies. According to CVA (pg 4), following scoping a Land Protection Plan may be developed. Somehow this all concludes with the ability to continue using and working the land. To the average eye it just looks like the government is buying up more land for its possession and control. The land owner is still stuck with the taxes, however, because the land can no longer be developed its worth may decrease with resulting lower taxes for the landowner, and in turn less revenue for the county in which it resides. Conservation easements do come with restrictions, in some instances there can be continued, but regulated, use. The point of all of this information is to alert Idahoans to the larger plan that many forces are working within government to meet international organizational objectives, and that the MHCA proposal is really about a much larger land area than what is revealed. This taking of land is a very incremental process and before you know it the frog is boiled to death. As can be seen, there are major bucks flowing into this agenda, and it also disregards sovereign state boundaries. Idahoans, don't be deceived, the MHCA is a major threat to Idaho and your active involvement in opposition to this proposal is needed. Send an email to the USFWS at [email protected] by November 27, 2023 and voice your opposition to this proposal. Alert your county commissioners to the operations of these NGOs and the government, use local land use plans to prohibit these actions, and educate others on the dangers of conservation easements. On June 20, 2023 Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Interior regarding Opposition to Proposed Rule “Conservation and Landscape Health. Tremendous dichotomies exist with land management. Money pours in for forest fire prevention while at the same time forests are allowed to become burdened with fuel loads that only act as incinerators. "We let forests burn" is an insane ideology. Fires destroy the habitat environmentalists crusade to protect. The introduction of wolves has resulted in the loss of wildlife, one issue environmentalists champion for protection. Renewable energy is one of the most damaging to the environment under the guise of protecting it. One doozy of a dichotomy exists with Elk and Deer. Are potential causes of disease in these majestic animals being ignored or dismissed for a reason?
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a fatal disease affecting Elk, Deer, Moose, and other wildlife, where the animal experiences neurological deterioration. It first appeared at Slate Creek in Idaho County, November 2021. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) claims CWD is a Prion disease, a malformed protein that enters the brain, with no understanding of "how it is spread". But the actions they are taking to minimize the spread, which speak louder than their words, suggest they believe it is spread by direct contact. The animal eventually wastes away from a poor immune response, starvation, and weakness. IDFG focuses on minimizing its spread and developed a strategy in 2021 that includes surveillance and monitoring with the help of hunters, along with "cutting deer density to reduce CWD risk". . Elk Hoof Disease (EHD) was also discovered in Idaho County in 2018. This disease is blamed on a Treponema spirochete bacterium that is suspected to cause hoof abnormalities and lameness in elk, leading to poor health and death. It was recently discovered that it is spread by "exposure to soil contaminated with hooves from affected elk". Drawing this conclusion, however, is problematic as this study gave limited consideration to other soil or environmental factors, failed to use pesticide contaminated soil, artificially created a condition with an overabundance of a pathogen, and wrapped the Elk's hooves in inoculation, creating an environment that would not be found on Elk in the wild. This map shows where EHD has been discovered in the Pacific Northwest. While Prion and Treponema have nothing to do with each other, what IDFG is failing to consider is soil health and how that may be contributing to the spread of both diseases. Why would they ignore that possibility? Idaho has a Noxious Weed program for invasive species in which IDFG participates because of its invasion into Elk forage. Biological treatment is emphasized for elimination of these weeds however, "chemical treatment is the most common option where feasible". IDFG, however, is rather secretive about what chemicals they use. The US Forest Service also has a Pesticide Management program that does not identify what chemicals are used. Commonly used pesticide agents include Glyphosate, Atrazine, 2,4-D, and Milestone. It is well known that these chemicals destroy everything in their path and have toxic effects to humans. One hypothesis is that these chemicals also cause EHD. Atrazine is particularly devastating to the immune system. Other contributing pesticides to EHD and CWD are Sulfonylurea and Diuron as both can inhibit microbial activity in the soil. Overall, these chemicals not only destroy Elk forage, they also have a damaging effect on soil health. While many variables determine how long pesticides remain in the soil, they can persist up to a decade. Manganese is "an essential human dietary element" found in soil and plants. Manganese deficiency can lead to gut and immune dysfunction, and has a relationship to Prion disease. Studies have shown that Glyphosate depletes Manganese in plants. Selenium, another trace element in soil necessary for plant development, is also dependent on soil microorganisms and cannot be easily applied to soil. Its depletion in soil has also been associated with deteriorating animal health by disrupting a healthy immune system, again suggestive of CWD, and in hoof deformities. Chemical spraying, and its adverse impact on soil, does appear to be a common source for both diseases, yet it has not been adequately researched. At hand is the lack of consideration that pesticides not only kill noxious weeds, but also destroy living organisms in the soil that maintains its health. In fact, the same corporations that produce pesticides are touting their investments in soil health, while claiming that poor soil health is from climate change. But the truth is they destroy the soil in order to put forward profit making solutions. To the rescue is lucrative corporate markets that create products to fix the problems they create. Corporations have even hijacked associations to advance their cause. Syngenta products include herbicides, and through its Biologicals, and its partner Valagro, sells products to fix the damage they cause as part of its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Brexil Combi, made by Valagro, contains a Manganese replacement. Monsanto, producer of Glysophate products, was bought by Bayer in 2016. As was Monsanto, both Syngenta and Bayer are World Economic Forum (WEF) partners. Along with its government pals, Bayer has declared Glyphosate as safe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Bayer also blames climate change and loss of biodiversity as a problem while having several products that actually destroy biodiversity, and is being fined for its false safety claims. Corteva, a descendant of DuPont, produces Milestone. Called Aminopyralid, it is a pesticide that tends to remain in the soil and carry over and damage new growth. Could ruined soil be the planned precursor to invest in "microbial-based solutions", or completely revamp soil composition, all the while messing around with RNA genetics and engineering soil microorganisms? Like everything else going on right now, corporations have their own misinformation (let's call it what it is, lying) campaign that using less pesticides would contribute to the global climate crisis. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is putting up a front to address the pesticide problem, it is a partner with the same cabal that corporations are tied to. In the EPA's interest to protect corporations, the whole federal government is similarly involved, including the US Forest Service, but were finally forced to admit ecological damage from these products. Don't touch their products that destroy the land as that would in turn destroy their self-created markets that will fix it! And these corporations are not afraid to give dictates to the government. The corruption is so widespread a book has even been written about it. Thus the dichotomy. Corporations use destructive means to destroy the environment while claiming it adds to food production, and lay blame on climate change in order to enrich their own profits. Through the use of chemicals the soil is destroyed, wildlife movement through the chemically contaminated soil can spread it to other areas while being exposed to an overgrowth of invasive bacterium that cause disease and possibly eating the sprayed forage along the way, soil is being depleted of necessary nutrients for life, and the land then becomes a haven for disease. Wildlife loss is of no concern to them and warnings about the dangers of these products would logically be the same for wildlife. Could it be Elk are actually spreading the cause of the problem rather than the disease itself? Pesticides destroy soil microbiology. Why has this not been a focus as it has been in other prion studies? In Idaho County where CWD and EHD were found, there is a noxious weed problem with Yellow Starthistle. While biocontrol methods have been tried they aren't successful in controlling the problem and in addition to other areas in the state. chemical spraying is used, Glyphosate and Aminopyralid being the most effective. Oddly, cattle, sheep, and goat grazing are not used to address this weed problem. Cheatgrass is another noxious weed where Yellow Starthistle is found, and is controlled with spraying. Again, cattle grazing is not used to contain this weed. Corporations that produce these pesticides wield quite a bit of influence over the government. If IDFG were to challenge the use of pesticides as the causal factor in CWD and EHD, what wrath would they experience from these corporations? Would the idea of investigating this correlation be enough to bring threats of retaliation by the corporate world? Or are they under the same oppression as others have been when corporations are challenged? In order to save and protect Elk that are suffering from these diseases, IDFG must embark upon more studies into the correlation between spraying devastating chemicals and how it affects these animals. Pressure must be brought to bear on all agencies that use these practices until such time they study the cause and effect between pesticides and the health of wildlife. Contact your local IDFG Regional Office here and ask where comments can be made, or provide comments to any one of the IDFG Commissioners here. While this does not solve the problem pesticides cause in wildlife disease, it does give an indication that the corporate methodology is the same. Destroy something and blame it on climate change, then create the costly solution to fix it, while suppressing the ability to expose the truth. It cannot be denied the negative impact these chemicals have on both the land and in wildlife. It is often difficult to explain something that doesn't make sense in a way that it does make sense. Starting with the foundation of the insanity may be the place to start. It was previously revealed that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adheres to international standards for conservation. Although "fragmentation" and "habitat" are frequently referenced in the Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment in relation to multiple different types of species, the word connectivity isn't really prominent. One purpose of moving and decreasing the number of these trails is to repair fragmentation and restore land for connectivity. Habitat connectivity is the insane notion that because of human activity, roads, and development, habitat becomes fragmented. In other words, the land that maintains connectivity, corridors and stepping stones, is disrupted. In the graphic below, it is conceived that there must be a connection between patches in order to maintain connectivity. This habitat includes all ecological elements, including vegetation and wildlife. If damaged, that area must be restored in order to re-establish connectivity. Maintaining connectivity protects biodiversity, or so they say. The 2021 White House America the Beautiful initiative, which outlined its conservation goals, includes its 30x30 agenda, a plan to conserve 30% of land by 2030. Other than declaring more national monuments for banned use, it has taken two years until now to get going on this. However, it now appears the aggressive move is on for placing land into conservation. It is clear that using habitat connectivity is at the core of meeting the 30x30 goal.
In March 2023, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) put out a memo that outlined the new requirement that all public land use planning must include connectivity. Maybe the Chair should have checked with the BLM, as it had already instituted this policy in November, 2022. Somehow, the BLM sees "“wildlife and fish” as one of the resources expressly included in the definition of “multiple use” (Section 103(c)" in the Federal Land Management & Policy Act (FLPMA), and justifying its use for connectivity. BLM land must now be evaluated to determine "if existing land use plan decisions are (or are not) restoring, maintaining, improving, and/or conserving areas of habitat connectivity" and "incorporate areas of habitat connectivity". From that, the land use will be planned around habitat connectivity, which plays into where and why trails are being moved and reduced, as this policy includes "Travel management implementation". The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) are two organizations ready to jump on this as connectivity is their heart. As the name implies, the NLC is a network of environmental groups as well as government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service. In February, 2023 it held a webinar that discussed "Insights into the new Global Biodiversity Framework" (GBF) that came out of COP 15, held in December, 2022. Also attending COP 15 were officials from the Biden, State, and USAID departments. Even though the U.S. is not a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is an "observer" to support the GBF, its outcomes in America, and its 30x30 agenda. The CEQ Chair, the one who can't keep dates straight, was also present, lending her support and commitment to the GBF. The GBF also meets the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Along with CLLC celebrating this framework, both of these two organizations have had direct influence on government policies on integrating habitat and wildlife connectivity into federal planning and decisions. The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are one area where this connectivity agenda is being used. There are four GBF goals. Goal A focuses on "the integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored". Within these 4 goals are 23 targets to be met by 2030. This is the core of 30x30, using biodiversity to take land for conservation as outlined in Target 2. The America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda originates from Target 3 which ensures the conservation of 30% of the land and inland waters. Target 4 calls for "management actions to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species". Target 14 ensures "the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes" which are being implemented through the BLM. Following COP 15 in March 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines "for ecological connectivity and wildlife corridors" that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are not the only area where this connectivity agenda will be used. In a NLC webinar, as attendees to COP 15, it was discussed how the GBF is part of the America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda, and as a U.S. observer, it will help to implement GBF objectives. Indigenous rights were also heavily emphasized. Not surprisingly, it was also revealed that about 2,000 corporations were present at COP 15 to develop markets for this agenda, Nature Action 100 being one of them. Like the proposed conservation leasing, public land is being monetized, not for our right to use the land, but to conserve it for the purposes of making money for the government. The Department of Interior (DOI) also held its own little party in March of this year, celebrating its conservation agenda, even with Biden in attendance, who gave kudos to Rep. Mike Simpson "to bring healthy and abundant salmon runs back to the Colorado [Columbia] River system." (This is in reference to Simpson wanting to remove dams. Parenthesis is to fix Biden's gaffe. His remarks begin at the 37" mark in the video). Nice to know we have an Idaho representative enmeshed with a president and not the people. Biden even referenced running roughshod over private land for this agenda. In the video of the DOI event, there were multiple Native American speakers and again, a very heavy emphasis on Indigenous rights. At the 11:25 mark, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory, a COP 15 attendee, spoke. She mentioned the same, connecting habitat across private land, infusing equity and justice into the use of land, and was excited the president could do all of this by just using his pen. So, the upshot is that public land agencies will be integrating connectivity into all land planning, resulting in a reduction of land use for the protection of biodiversity, as outlined by organizations in which these agencies have made international agreements. Also on the horizon, these agencies are looking to monetize this work, making the land a money-making machine for them. Who then will control how the land is used? Be on the lookout for GBF implementation on BLM and other public land in your area. Land use planning is now about connectivity and eliminating the use of land. Understand your enemy. Watch the videos. These directives are not based on the law. It is nearly impossible to find any government agency that is not tied in with corporations, foreign governments, environmental and other radical non-profit groups, and despotic organizations such as the UN. The U.S. has not followed the Constitution for decades. Until this is realized by all, and choose to do something about it, we will fail in getting our country back. While this information is about southeast Idaho, the issue is relevant for all Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land throughout Idaho. In March 2023, the BLM released its Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that affects Fremont, Teton, Bonneville, Madison, Jefferson, Bingham, Power, and Clark Counties. The plan "proposes a network of designated routes and trails for managing travel" in these areas that includes "highway vehicles (low-7 clearance sedans and trucks), off-highway vehicles (OHVs), motorcycles, utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, bicycles, e-bikes, equestrian, and foot travel." What it really means is that these modes of transportation are being targeted for a reduction, and in some cases, full elimination, for use on public land. The basic gist of this BLM plan is to take current trails, remove them from use for restorative work, and then build new trails that will be reduced in number, or have more restricted use.
Yes, it is back to the old adage that humans are destroying the environment and need to be banned from using it. Environmental damage claims include loss of biodiversity from compacted trails, wildlife "harassment", excessive noise, and watershed disturbance. In the four alternatives, the description of OHV use is broken down into Open, Limited, and Closed (pg 16). A breakdown of alternatives in Appendix F (pgs F7-F13) includes A, which is continued use with no changes; Alternative B, which is closed to all activity; Alternative C, which is limited use; and Alternative D, which is Open, meaning year round use. Alternatives have also been classified with an Emphasis, covered on pages 108-109. These are all compared to Alternative A, which is no change, regarding reduction in use. Alternative B has a Natural Resource Emphasis (pg 37) which, as an example, includes decommissioning trails for reclamation, then constructing new trails that have no motorized use. Multiple Use Emphasis is Alternative C (pg 39), which ironically goes on to describe the reduction of use. Alternative D is an Access Emphasis (pg 41), which similarly describes how much reduction there would be for use. Throughout the document, there are multiple charts detailing the impact of how the land is damaged and can be improved, what species are affected, and how this plan with its different alternatives will protect everything. This information contained here is only a very limited summary of the plan. Bottom line, this is nothing more than an attack against OHV and non-OHV use (pg 112) on public lands, and that is clearly blatant as outlined in Appendix C. And just where does the BLM get its authority to do any of this? As responsible, accountable government employees, all of their authority and right to make these changes are listed in the plan itself. But the truth is, there is no law for what the BLM is doing, and (c)"Authorization means any...determination, or other administrative decision issued by an agency that is required or authorized under Federal law in order to implement a proposed action." Starting with Appendix D(D-1), Policies, Statutes, and Guidance, the first policy cited is 43 CFR Part 8340: Off-Road Vehicles. CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations, the government rules published in the Federal Register that are supposed to reflect the intent of laws passed by Congress. So the BLM is basically saying its own rules gives it authority to do what it is doing in the plan, because there is no law to cite. Going back to 43 CFR Part 8340, it states one authority for this rule is E.O. 11644. Well, this E.O. (Executive Order) was created in 1972 by President Nixon, it was never a law. He created this to "establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed", and in "furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321)". The second cited authority is E.O. 11989 by President Carter in 1977, which basically excluded the military and law enforcement from these rules, but also dictated that OHV use causing "considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands, immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle". So Mr. Dictator Carter made up his own law to close areas that the BLM is using in part to justify its actions while modifying NEPA. "The United States Constitution permits federal agencies to promulgate rules to enable Congress’ legislation", not executive orders. “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Hugo Black said in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer case with regard to executive orders. Clearly, the E.O.s by Nixon and Carter were creating laws regarding OHV use on public land. Several legitimate laws are cited as the authority for 43 CFR Part 8340, that is laws that support the rule, including the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA), but none of those laws address OHV use. FLPMA instead states that lands (8) "will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use". The draconian OHV rules in the plan clearly violate (7) "goals and objectives be established by law" because there is no law on OHV use, but there is for the establishment of trails. Does the BLM even understand there is no OHV law to follow for this plan? While 16 U.S. Code § 1531 is also cited as an authority in the CFR, nowhere does it state that public use can be limited or banned. Take note of (a)(4), which states "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community" and to "maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments". More to come on that. 16 U.S. Code § 1281 is worth reading, and 16 U.S.C. 1241 says to "encourage and assist volunteer citizen involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and management, where appropriate, of trails", Were any OHV or non-OHV users, or any county citizens for that matter, involved in the development of this plan? Appendix A, References (A1-A5), primarily uses only government data, which may be a violation of the Data Quality Act. Has the BLM looked beyond its own data for other studies? For example, the plan states, "It is highly likely that recreation visitor numbers in the TMA would continue to increase in the future. A travel route network that provides for a wide variety of structured motorized and non-motorized opportunities and experiences is more apt to reduce user inclination to travel off-route. This can provide for increased user compliance with route designations which helps to minimize OHV use-related damage to unique and sensitive natural and cultural resources. A travel network that closes and reclaims more routes to year-round OHV use would provide for higher quality recreation experiences for non-motorized users than a network that designates more routes as open to OHV use (pg 113)". Just how does the BLM know this, did they do a study that proves any of these opinions? Is the BLM clairvoyant or does it have a crystal ball? Even its own 2007 report on OHV use said research was lacking (pg 56). Know the law, it can be your best friend. Now, this plan isn't just a sudden development to take land use away, it has been in the works for awhile as it has been on hold since 2016. On March 23, 2023, the White House announced its intent to dump $2.1 billion into land conservation. Specifically, Strengthening the Stewardship of America’s Public Lands was assigned to the BLM to seek input on a new rule to "modernize" strategies for managing the land. Amazing how this plan and the announcement came out at the exact same time. So how did anyone know to be working on this? Well... In November 2021, the Department of the Interior joined land managers from around the globe and endorsed a Protected and Conserved Areas Joint Statement on Climate Change and Biodiversity Crisis, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP26 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15. Along with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), signers included the BLM, National Park Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Forest Service. All of their signatures can be seen here, on pages 5-7, along with the other foreigners. So even though the law states the U.S. is a sovereign state, the traitors at the head of these agencies are committed to meeting "international commitments". No surprise given the current incompetent person running the Department of Interior. This land protection scam is only going to get worse, every species in existence on God's green earth will eventually be scooped up. The global standard for management is already in place (Criterion 3.1) with "an indication of the activities that are allowed or prohibited" and "Where use and access are permitted" (Criterion 3.6). And they are all in on the 30x30 agenda, which is well understood by California OHV users. So, it's okay to tear up the land for wind turbines that create noise that harasses wildlife and kills avian life, and solar panels that prevent vegetation growth and habitat, but not okay to use a trail. Maybe linking this plan to an international plot is a stretch. However, most Americans probably understand there are forces greater than their voice ruling everything. About 85 years ago, there were many who turned their souls over to a dictator and government, blindly following every dictate that was delivered to them. It seems the BLM has been drifting in a similar direction for some time. Maybe it is time to bring the BLM back into reality by confronting them with the laws they are not following and to whom they are accountable. For recreational areas like Island Park this plan would have a devastating economic impact. Maybe the BLM needs to go back to the drawing board and involve OHV groups to develop a plan, at least that is what the law requires. Comments on this plan can be made at this link, click on the green Participate Now link on the left, and choose Alternative A. The comment period ends on July 10, 2023. County Commissioners hold more authority than they realize. Our Republic was built on a foundation of strength at a local level, where citizens can be engaged with those they elect to represent them. From that, citizens also have the responsibility for holding those elected officials to account for their actions. As already known, the federal government far exceeds it enumerated powers assigned by the Constitution. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is just one example of an infringement of the Constitution. Now, the BLM is attempting to exercise that blatant lack of authority in Idaho by cutting backroom deals with a corporation for money to build unwanted wind turbines on land that is protected by law for public use. The deal has a real pretentious name, the Lava Ridge Wind Project. All "public" land "managed" by the federal government lies in counties within a state. In the case of Lava Ridge, this project lies within Jerome, Lincoln, and Minidoka counties. Without going into the ongoing donnybrook about the federal government not "owning" public land that should be turned over to the states, or how the land is significantly mismanaged, or how the land has been incrementally taken away from public use, the focus should really be on the fact that whatever land is defined as public land, it sits in a state county. Along with Coordination, commissioners also have other available tools at their disposal to ban Lava Ridge. County commissioners have the authority to create and pass laws under local ordinances. In one Idaho county, Washington, the commissioners appropriately took note of the fact that public land sat in their county and, using federal law, chose to create ordinances that strongly reflect their authority to govern that land. Ordinance 88 defined that "the ranchers own the grass and the water rights on their allotments in Washington County" and "with any other private property rights, these rights on split estate land administered by the Federal Government are protected in the constitution." The Organic Act of 1897 ensured the "pasturing of livestock on public lands" would not be interfered with. The Lava Ridge project significantly interferes with grazing allotments. The Ordinance also references the Taylor Grazing Act that protects the grazing rights of ranchers, and is strengthened by Idaho Code 25-903 that anyone interfering with these rights is guilty of a misdemeanor. Another federal law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that protects the public's right to use the land, is referenced. It also gives the Washington county Sheriff the authority to protect these rights and a court to impose fines and other punishments to those who violate them. In Ordinance 87, the requirement for the federal government to Coordinate with the local authority is mentioned right off the bat. Also, mentioned again is the Organic Act of 1897 that "provides for State and Local Jurisdiction of Federal Lands". Specifically, #6 of the Organic Act states, "the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such reservation is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens". That means the county holds the jurisdiction over the land, not the BLM. But the BLM doesn't want you to know this. Any BLM activity that interferes with the rights and privileges of citizens within a county must be held accountable to the local jurisdictional authority. The Ordinance also states, "The Sheriff has the authority under this ordinance", which again means jurisdictional authority. "Federal law enforcement officers operate under the Sheriff’s authority and shall not enforce any laws upon the citizens of the county without permission of the Sheriff." This is true for other actions by federal authorities, the permission of the local Sheriff is required. But the federal government has bullied and intimidated local governments and citizens into believing it holds supreme authority. It is time that stops. The federal government has been abusing its own laws, often against citizens. There are other documents that support these Ordinances. The BLM Mitigation Handbook states, "If siting compensatory mitigation on split estate lands, the BLM will ensure that the willing landowner consents..." (page 2-18). Has any rancher consented to the Lava Ridge DEIS mitigation measures? The BLM cannot move forward with this project without their consent.
The BLM is exploiting land for profit while abusing the lawful rights of those who use the land. It is time that the protection of these rights is exercised by county officials, and citizens of these counties should contact their respective commissioners and ask that these ordinances are put into place. It is also time that citizens, and local officials, stop being intimidated by the federal government and use the laws that have been established for their protection. The comment period on the Lava Ridge project ended April 20, but there is no reason to let that deter anyone from commenting. Voices still need to be heard. Let the BLM know that it is expected that they follow the law, first by mandate that they Coordinate with the local county officials, and second, that this project cannot go forward until the law is followed. Sometimes the agendas come so rapidly it is difficult to keep them apart because at the core they all serve the same purpose.
Since the federal government no longer operates as three separate branches with the legislative branch assigned to creating laws, the Executive Branch and unconstitutional administrative rulemaking process now create laws that Americans are subjected to without any congressional involvement. Quite notorious are rules that are written under the Department of Interior (DOI). Given that the federal government now operates in bed with corporations and non-government organizations (NGO), many of the rules are created for the benefit of those groups and not us. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and its buddy corporations and environmental groups have been busy creating a new "rule" that will economically benefit the BLM, serve the ideology of environmental groups, and help the corporate world advance renewable energy projects. Not only are the Executive Branch and DOI handing over "public" land to corporations for renewable energy projects, but with BLM's full participation, this proposed rule also advances the White House 30x30 agenda, a goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030. It is the rewriting of a regulatory framework that will put public land under the 30x30 classification for land conservation. 30x30 isn't even a federal law passed by Congress, it is a dictate from the White House that meets an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) goal, a United Nations participant. That alone should negate any participation in 30x30, or through illegal rulings by the BLM. However, the DOI is an IUCN member through several of its agencies, so the same ideology is probably applied to the BLM. The DOI announced its "Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands" in March, putting "conservation on equal footing with other uses". Other highlights include identifying "areas in need of restoration or conservation", and building "on...clean energy deployment". Its three-pronged justification is to "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data” while incorporating "land health assessments" in BLM decisions on land use. This proposed rule was released in the Federal Register on April 3, and folks are urging a rapid deployment before a possible flip in Congress in 2024. Now, if this were such a wonderful idea, why are they scared? Just a quick summary of this rule provides the fluff. "Manage the land for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems"; "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat"; "apply land health standards" (now there's a scary thought); "clarify that conservation is a “use” within the FLPMA’s multiple-use framework"; and "revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)." By "clarifying" conservation as a use, the BLM is changing the law without Congressional involvement. The Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended in 2021, does not address the classification of land for conservation leasing, instead emphasizing that land is used for its resources. Page 2(c) defines multiple use. Effect on existing rights, page 79(a), makes it clear that nothing can terminate the rights to use the land. Pretending that leasing land for conservation serves the purpose of multiple use is only a distorted fantasy. Through the DOI, the White House is revising the FLPMA law without any congressional involvement. Once again, the rule of law is ignored by the White House. Buried deep in this rhetoric is a plan that should raise the hair on the back of the neck, "conservation leasing". DOI's definition of this is a "time-limited lease" allowing "interested organizations conduct restoration or mitigation activities...to facilitate development projects". It will also "prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning." All of this means non-use. PERC probably describes it best, "creating markets for conservation". With this rule, the DOI is advancing public land as a commodity. The BLM will make an unknown amount of money because corporations can pay "to restore a degraded ecosystems" to "offset environmentally harmful activities". Same with NGOs. Through NatureVest, the Nature Conservancy already has the program to exploit conservation for profit. Opposite of what the DOI claims, that multi-use will continue in spite of this conservation, if a wealthy environmental group or corporation dumps their money into one of these leases, use can be denied, as either will hold the ability to "preclude the parcel from...grazing during the extendable 10-year term. The leases might also block future leasing for uses deemed incompatible with the conservation work." It might become a mad bidding war between corporations and environmental groups to see who can buy up the most "leasing". However, perhaps unbeknownst to some, it has always been illegal for environmental groups to lease public land. This proposed rule removes that problem for them and really opens the door to their bank vault, tying up land across America. No wonder they love it. Perhaps quid pro quo? Companies have also been "requesting conservation leases". No doubt, the DOI is serving its NGO and corporate constituents well. To offset the damage from a renewable energy project, corporations will use the excuse to lease land either surrounding the project or in another area to offset that damage by restoring the leased land. In some instances, it is called "carbon offsetting", which really appears to be more of a money game than making a real difference. The insane idea behind this is that leased land would be saved for more public use because it would somehow be healthier. As the BLM goes about making its "health assessments" of the land, there is fairly good potential that more land will be identified as unhealthy and needing repair, then sucked up for conservation and non-use. With powerful and wealthy corporations and their rich NGO pals, the whole BLM landscape could be sucked up in restoration and mitigation projects through leasing. "Science" will surely be used to justify the land's need for restoration. If NGOs love it, it has to be bad. Temporary restrictions on use are part of the rule for restoration of degraded land. Keeping the land available for multiple use through this proposed rule is a lie. Temporary restrictions while degraded land is restored can extend up to ten years. How long does land take to restore itself, or is that up to some bureaucratic technocrat? The rule also states it “would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” So cattle grazing would have to fit this new narrative or else, and with the hatred of cattle, no compatibility would probably ever be recognized. So in between all of the malarkey of how wonderful this is to improve the land and make it available for everyone's great-great grandkids, it is really a twisted way of taking land away from public use and making money off corporations and NGOs. For corporations, the excuse can be to offset greenhouse gas emissions they create, or "funding renewable energy projects" can be considered a carbon offset. How handy is that for renewable energy corporations? The regulation calls for an assessment of all public land, its state of degradation, and need for restoration, which includes grazing land. For now, grazing is spared from this rule until the land can be assessed, but it is still a threat to the cattle industry and is in the 30x30 crosshairs for conservation leasing. At least U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) understand this rule violates the law and will kill multiple use as land that is leased out for conservation will not be available for use under the Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSY). He, along with Senator Jim Risch, have introduced a bill to stop this proposed BLM rule. Of note, comments are being made by individuals who don't even live in states where BLM land exists, many of whom live in eastern states. They think the idea of the BLM conserving the land is great without really understanding the full impact of this proposed rule, let alone understanding it is a violation of the Congressional role to create laws. This is borne out by the significant numbers of canned support letters the NGOs tell them to use, just accepting what is spoon fed to them without taking the time to understand the issue. It seems most of these comments originate from The Wilderness Society. This is the ignorance we are up against and the herd mentality. Because the sheep are following orders, most of the comments support this rule. All comments can be browsed here. Comments on this proposed rule can be made on this link, and submitted by June 20, 2023. To review the proposed rule, go to this link. Let the BLM know that this rule is illegal, that it only serves its corporate and NGO buddies, and will destroy the purpose of FLPMA for multiple-use. Sometimes the agendas come so rapidly it is difficult to keep them apart because at the core they all serve the same purpose.
Since the federal government no longer operates as three separate branches with the legislative branch assigned to creating laws, the Executive Branch and unconstitutional administrative rulemaking process now create laws that Americans are subjected to without any congressional involvement. Quite notorious are rules that are written under the Department of Interior (DOI). Given that the federal government now operates in bed with corporations and non-government organizations (NGO), many of the rules are created for the benefit of those groups and not us. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and its buddy corporations and environmental groups have been busy creating a new “rule” that will economically benefit the BLM, serve the ideology of environmental groups, and help the corporate world advance renewable energy projects. Not only are the Executive Branch and DOI handing over “public” land to corporations for renewable energy projects, but with BLM’s full participation, this proposed rule also advances the White House 30×30 agenda, a goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030. It is the rewriting of a regulatory framework that will put public land under the 30×30 classification for land conservation. 30×30 isn’t even a federal law passed by Congress, it is a dictate from the White House that meets an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) goal, a United Nations participant. That alone should negate any participation in 30×30, or through illegal rulings by the BLM. However, the DOI is an IUCN member through several of its agencies, so the same ideology is probably applied to the BLM. The DOI announced its “Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands” in March, putting “conservation on equal footing with other uses”. Other highlights include identifying “areas in need of restoration or conservation”, and building “on…clean energy deployment”. Its three-pronged justification is to “protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data” while incorporating “land health assessments” in BLM decisions on land use. This proposed rule was released in the Federal Register on April 3, and folks are urging a rapid deployment before a possible flip in Congress in 2024. Now, if this were such a wonderful idea, why are they scared? Just a quick summary of this rule provides the fluff. “Manage the land for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems”; “protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat”; “apply land health standards” (now there’s a scary thought); “clarify that conservation is a “use” within the FLPMA’s multiple-use framework”; and “revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).” By “clarifying” conservation as a use, the BLM is changing the law without Congressional involvement. The Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended in 2021, does not address the classification of land for conservation leasing, instead emphasizing that land is used for its resources. Page 2(c) defines multiple use. Effect on existing rights, page 79(a), makes it clear that nothing can terminate the rights to use the land. Pretending that leasing land for conservation serves the purpose of multiple use is only a distorted fantasy. Through the DOI, the White House is revising the FLPMA law without any congressional involvement. Once again, the rule of law is ignored by the White House. Buried deep in this rhetoric is a plan that should raise the hair on the back of the neck, “conservation leasing”. DOI’s definition of this is a “time-limited lease” allowing “interested organizations conduct restoration or mitigation activities…to facilitate development projects”. It will also “prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning.” All of this means non-use. PERC probably describes it best, “creating markets for conservation”. With this rule, the DOI is advancing public land as a commodity. The BLM will make an unknown amount of money because corporations can pay “to restore a degraded ecosystems” to “offset environmentally harmful activities”. Same with NGOs. Through NatureVest, the Nature Conservancy already has the program to exploit conservation for profit. Opposite of what the DOI claims, that multi-use will continue in spite of this conservation, if a wealthy environmental group or corporation dumps their money into one of these leases, use can be denied, as either will hold the ability to “preclude the parcel from…grazing during the extendable 10-year term. The leases might also block future leasing for uses deemed incompatible with the conservation work.” It might become a mad bidding war between corporations and environmental groups to see who can buy up the most “leasing”. However, perhaps unbeknownst to some, it has always been illegal for environmental groups to lease public land. This proposed rule removes that problem for them and really opens the door to their bank vault, tying up land across America. No wonder they love it. Perhaps quid pro quo? Companies have also been “requesting conservation leases”. No doubt, the DOI is serving its NGO and corporate constituents well. To offset the damage from a renewable energy project, corporations will use the excuse to lease land either surrounding the project or in another area to offset that damage by restoring the leased land. In some instances, it is called “carbon offsetting”, which really appears to be more of a moneygame than making a real difference. The insane idea behind this is that leased land would be saved for more public use because it would somehow be healthier. As the BLM goes about making its “health assessments” of the land, there is fairly good potential that more land will be identified as unhealthy and needing repair, then sucked up for conservation and non-use. With powerful and wealthy corporations and their rich NGO pals, the whole BLM landscape could be sucked up in restoration and mitigation projects through leasing. “Science” will surely be used to justify the land’s need for restoration. If NGOs love it, it has to be bad. Temporary restrictions on use are part of the rule for restoration of degraded land. Keeping the land available for multiple use through this proposed rule is a lie. Temporary restrictions while degraded land is restored can extend up to ten years. How long does land take to restore itself, or is that up to some bureaucratic technocrat? The rule also states it “would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” So cattle grazing would have to fit this new narrative or else, and with the hatred of cattle, no compatibility would probably ever be recognized. So in between all of the malarkey of how wonderful this is to improve the land and make it available for everyone’s great-great grandkids, it is really a twisted way of taking land away from public use and making money off corporations and NGOs. For corporations, the excuse can be to offset greenhouse gas emissions they create, or “funding renewable energy projects” can be considered a carbon offset. How handy is that for renewable energy corporations? The regulation calls for an assessment of all public land, its state of degradation, and need for restoration, which includes grazing land. For now, grazing is spared from this rule until the land can be assessed, but it is still a threat to the cattle industry and is in the 30×30 crosshairs for conservation leasing. At least U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) understand this rule violates the law and will kill multiple use as land that is leased out for conservation will not be available for use under the Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSY). He, along with Senator Jim Risch, have introduced a bill to stop this proposed BLM rule. Of note, comments are being made by individuals who don’t even live in states where BLM land exists, many of whom live in eastern states. They think the idea of the BLM conserving the land is great without really understanding the full impact of this proposed rule, let alone understanding it is a violation of the Congressional role to create laws. This is borne out by the significant numbers of canned support letters the NGOs tell them to use, just accepting what is spoon fed to them without taking the time to understand the issue. It seems most of these comments originate from The Wilderness Society. This is the ignorance we are up against and the herd mentality. Because the sheep are following orders, most of the comments support this rule. All comments can be browsed here. Comments on this proposed rule can be made on this link and submitted by June 20, 2023. To review the proposed rule, go to this link. Let the BLM know that this rule is illegal, that it only serves its corporate and NGO buddies, and will destroy the purpose of FLPMA for multiple-use. Idahoans probably remember the 2014 standoff that occurred between Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at Bunkerville, Nevada, and also involved Americans from across the U.S. coming to support Bundy. The press described the scene as a law-breaking rancher and inappropriately labeled supporters “domestic terrorists” and other derogatory names. These “terrorists” were blamed for causing problems with horrifically distorted news on the matter that really didn’t expose what it was about. In spite of what BLM spokesman Craig Leff claimed, that there is “no connection” between the impoundment of Bundy’s cattle and solar energy development in Nevada”, evidence points to a different conclusion. Former Senator Harry Reid, and his son Rory, had been working with the Chinese ENN Energy Group for solar projects on federal land, spurred on by the Reids as early as 2011, and LS Power since 2010. Over 50 million acres of public land, or 70% of Nevada, had already been designated for solar development in 2010, 5,717 acres in Clark County alone. In 2010, Reid was even able to get a pre-approved LS Power line stretched into Idaho.As part of the Dry Lake Solar mitigation plan, the Bundy grazing range was identified as an area that could be used for protection of the desert tortoise, but the cattle were in the way, in spite of the fact that cattle and tortoises benefit from existing together. The BLM called it “Cattle Trespass Impacts” that interfered with the project. Non-governmental organizations (NGO) also supported the notion that these trespass cattle were in the way for the tortoise. So began the BLM round up of the cattle, and the beginning of the standoff. However, eventually the cattle had to be moved anyway. “The BLM wanted Cliven Bundy out of the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area so the agency could use the land for future solar projects”. Over the course of several weeks, the BLM, through its law enforcement program, implemented a series of steps that only encouraged an escalation of the situation. As supporters gathered, the BLM closed access to the public land and cordoned them off into a 1st Amendment area, which only inflamed the situation, and the BLM surely knew it would. Next, when citizens began to leave that designated area, the BLM chose to bring in more back-up with weapons and dogs in a show of force, again adding to the escalation. But that wasn’t enough for the BLM, the next step they took was destroying private property including cattle, assaulting citizens, and even slamming a woman to the ground. This only caused both sides to become more agitated, inviting more citizens to lend support and bring weapons for their own protection. The last insult was a false report that the land was being opened back up and the BLM was leaving, with the BLM refusing to acknowledge the local Sheriff’s authority in requesting them to leave. When it was discovered that was not the case, protesters gathered in a dry wash underneath an I-15 overpass. As a result, the BLM felt it was necessary to take up firing positions behind vehicles and on hilltops, with those rifles pointed at the protesters. By this time, it was clear the BLM had no problem overstepping its authority and increase the threat to American lives. But blame was placed on citizens for this escalation. It was finally the county Sheriff’s office that was able to use its role to negotiate an end to the standoff with the BLM director, even though the BLM claimed it was the primary arbitrator. Now, ENN dropped its pursuit of this project in June, 2013, before the Bundy incident, claiming lack of buyers. The standoff began in April, 2014 so it appears the two had nothing to do with each other. However, “In May 2012, the United States filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing within the Gold Butte area outside the Bunkerville Allotment.” The Center for Biological Diversity even put the heat on the BLM in 2012 with “a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy’s cattle”. The tortoise mitigation plan and removing cattle was being discussed during this time, before ENN dropped the project. Then, “On July 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Lloyd George permanently enjoined Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing and ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his trespass cattle from public land outside the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, stating that the United States is authorized to seize and impound any cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days.” Because of the tortoise mitigation measures within the Gold Butte area for renewable energy projects, that land was still needed, without cattle. Sen. Reid and the BLM recognized that advancing this solar power agenda would eventually return to the same issue because of the SWIP line. So, it would make sense to move ahead with the removal of the cattle as “public land in Clark County’s Dry Lake Valley has been zoned for solar energy development. For any projects to proceed, developers would have to balance the damage by conserving tortoise habitat elsewhere.” The 2012 Western Solar Plan, Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, continued this problem for Nevada. The BLM also determined that continued cattle grazing would interfere with the Bureau’s plans to use the land as an environmental mitigation area for desert tortoise disruption caused by the solar facility, again even though cattle and tortoises do well together. Did “Environmental mitigation necessary for a planned solar power project” motivate, or serve as an excuse for the BLM to launch a “military style” enforcement action? It is rumored that ENN didn’t want to pay for a tortoise reserve, and also saw the cattle as an issue. But it didn’t matter, Sen. Reid had his hands in everything since 2010, using tax dollars to achieve his goals. Eventually, Reid ensured that federal legislation moved other solar projects forward by bringing in NV Energy and LS Power. The rehash of this standoff in 2014 serves as a reminder of the potential dangers with the Lava Ridge project. With this project, there will be a major impact on cattle and other resources, and a repeat of what happened in Nevada should be at the back of everyone’s mind. There is high opposition to this project, and the potential for protests. LS Power and the BLM have literally zoned out the Magic Valley area for both solar and wind projects, just as in the Nevada case. If this project does move forward, Nevada should serve as a reminder to the BLM that citizens have the right to protest and there should be no interference with a staged and confined area for them to go in order to protest. Restricted areas are not within the First Amendment. The BLM should also acknowledge, recognize, and not mock the authority of the local Sheriff’s office. Should Lava Ridge become a protest issue, the BLM needs to be reminded that a local Sheriff is elected to protect citizen rights. In Nevada, it was the county Sheriff’s office that brought the situation to a peaceful end. Sheriff’s take an oath to uphold both the U.S. and state Constitutions, and is the first line of defense in preserving citizen rights. According to the Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), “law enforcement powers held by the sheriff supersede those of any agent, officer, elected official or employee from any level of government when in the jurisdiction of the county.” No less complicit is the media, framing the narrative as a cattle rancher conflict in order to disguise the involvement of corporate and federal deals. Journalists should follow their own Code of Ethics by not assigning negative labels to citizens or categorizing them into groups, embellishing stories, or printing exaggerated narratives. Journalists should be held responsible, and accountable, for reporting all facts. oth Bunkerville and Lava Ridge have to do with corporate powers that are in bed with the federal government along with powerful environmental groups, the money that can be made on both sides, and who or what can be bought. While there are some perspectives that the rancher won because he was released and continues to graze his cattle, in truth, nobody won because the same core problem exists. A federal government that is corrupt and out of control, engaging in corporatism, far exceeding its enumerated powers, and continuing to threaten the lives of citizens. It’s just part of the World Economic Forum agenda, in which the BLM participates via the Department of Interior (DOI). In 2014, LS Power Chairman, Mike Segal, and former Senator Harry Reid, were working together to bring solar power to Nevada through the Great Basin Transmission South line, an LS Power “affiliate” and co-owner of One Nevada Transmission Line. This is part of the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP), which also ties into Lava Ridge. Through all of these deals with the BLM, LS Power laid plans to build wind turbines, transmission lines, and other projects for a profit that have now reached Idaho, all the while not appearing to care much about what is in its way or how it clutters Idaho land. Because of these deals across “public land”, the BLM is more than complicit in this agenda, forgetting its role as stewards of land and as public servants. Magic Valley now faces the dilemma of stopping a wind turbine project from interfering with the cattle industry, a historical site, recreation, and use of airspace.
The Lava Ridge project is a threat that needs to be solved through legal means, there are laws that protect both ranchers and citizens, they just need to be used. Not that it’s recognized anyway, the BLM is not within the enumerated powers defined by the Constitution. Elected officials at a state and national level should use their authority to legally intervene. County officials have the authority through Coordination to force the federal government to the table and resolve inconsistencies in land use plans, and it should be used. Final comments for the Lava Ridge Project will end April 20. From there, the BLM will make a decision on whether this wind turbine project can move forward. At this point it should be Alternative A, No Action (page 2-1). We really just don’t want those turbines falling on cows. What’s it going to be BLM? Before one step further is taken, deny this project. Go back to the laws that prohibit the degradation of the land and the violation of ranchers and their grazing rights and public use of the land. As public servants that is your duty. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|