There will be a "National Summit For Gateway Communities" in West Virginia this December. While this may look like a benign get together, it really is an ominous forecast of what plans lay ahead for communities like Island Park.
The sponsors and planning committee of this summit include the Federal Highway Administration, Future West, several federal resource agencies, conservation groups, and Urban Land Institute. Some of the topics for this summit include:
Now just exactly what is a gateway community? According to this website, PlannersWeb, a gateway community is "Americans...heading for the communities that serve as the gateways to our national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands", "are important not just because they provide food and lodging for Americans on their way to visit national parks and other public lands"..."are also portals to our most cherished landscapes." and "define the park experience for many visitors." As with every other phony crisis being thrown our way, now allegedly, so are small rural communities close to protected areas, described as being overwhelmed by "haphazard growth, feeling "helpless" with change, and development ruining habitat.
With this phony crisis, of course there has to be some experts from the outside swooping in to rescue these poor communities. So this website is for city planners to learn the proper tools on how to help their community cope with the travesties laid out for them by these experts. That is the essence of the summit's purpose, these organizations planning how to swoop in and lead small communities in the right direction. Transportation is a major key to this and is why the Federal Highway Administration is one of the sponsors. Wildlife overpasses are part of this transportation plan because in order to get people to their tourist destination, in Island Park's case Yellowstone, a safe passage must be built. Future West is involved because they are the expert for the "future where communities have a shared sense of place, robust economies, and sound stewardship of natural, cultural, and community assets." The citizens of those communities are lacking those abilities? Of course not, but they can be led to believe they are by the marketing tactics of organizations like Future West. Selling their "product" also garners them money. The Federal Highway Administration has their own ideas on how a gateway community should be developed, thus their involvement. Never mind letting the citizens who live there make the decision.
This summit is about laying plans for your future community, what it should look like, how it should operate, how you should be allowed to live. Island Park is one major target for this agenda.
Much has been written about the true end goal of Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) which is regulating land use, and controlling how land is used. Canada is heavily attacked by Y2Y and recently, because of Y2Y's partnership with the Alberta government, just as it is here, Alberta citizens will lose all control over how they are allowed to use their land.
Just announced was the intent of the Alberta government to create a park "system" that will overtake all land that is not currently designated as protected. It essentially implements Y2Y's goal of using that land for their connectivity agenda. This plan will include a wildland park, three provincial parks, and four public recreation areas. Forty million dollars will be spent on designing how that land can be used and creating regulations on how it can be used. That is what this is about, it isn't about protecting anything. Of course, Y2Y is drooling over this announcement. All of their hard work has come to fruition, dictators over land use.
To really get a sense of what this means one just needs to take a look at the phony government survey being put out for comments. In reality, the majority of Albertans oppose all of this. The survey is available to look at in the above link, but here are some highlights on which they want comments, specifically how one feels about what they would be allowed to do in each of the newly designated "parks". Try to imagine if these questions were being asked about Island Park and what your thoughts are to redesign how it is used. These are just some of the examples pulled from the survey. Notice all the designations for everything you would do, what you would be allowed to do, where you would be allowed to go, and how you would be allowed to stay. If this were an Island Park survey would you approve?
Tourism facility and visitor attraction development is not compatible with the backcountry-wilderness experience and management intent of a Wildland Provincial Park. However, small-scale rustic facility opportunities may be compatible.
What would be your level of support for the following outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism experiences and services?
a). Designated backcountry trail networks
b). Designated backcountry non-motorized camping areas including equestrian camping areas
c). Backcountry travel opportunities (e.g.guided tours, hut to hut)
Opportunities for tourism and facility development would be identified through planning. These may include camping, small-scale eco lodges, and comfort camping which may be associated with visitor services facilities (such as food and beverage service).
a). Designated backcountry "un-serviced camping areas"
b). Designated “limited serviced camping areas”
c). Designated frontcountry and vehicle accessible facilities and staging opportunities
e). Small-scale eco-lodges, Comfort Camping
f). Tourism attractions (e.g. via ferrata)
c). Designated backcountry non-motorized camping areas including equestrian camping areas
d). Backcountry travel opportunities (e.g. guided tours and activities)
a). Range of Fixed Roof accommodation (e.g. comfort camping, lodging, cabin opportunities, etc.)
c). Visitor services (e.g. retail, food sales, rentals, etc.)
d). Front country, vehicle accessible facilities and OHV staging opportunities
a). Range of Fixed Roof accommodation (e.g. wall tents, cabins)
There is more in the survey explaining the necessity for this, after all, it must be all about conservation and protection, not use. If you noticed the reference to "...meeting global standards for protected areas" by Y2Y they are referring to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) of which they are a member. Global standards for how we are allowed to use our land. No more going into the back country, seeing a sight without a guide, having a local business provide what you need, just think amusement park or zoo. That is what this is all about.
Take note from Alberta, they are suffering from the destructive Y2Y agenda. This is what it will look like for us if we do not stop it. And don't think it can't happen here, it can, and we are seeing some of it with the overpass issue, the agenda is the same. Non and regulated use.