In this article by David Gessner, December 17, 2019, A Path Forward for Connecting Public Lands With Wildlife Corridors", he describes his plane ride over Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. He commends Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) founder Harvey Locke, for his vision to "connect the world’s first national park, Yellowstone" clear into the Yukon just for the purpose of taking one half million square miles of land where wildlife could "live and freely migrate". His description of this land he flew over is that it is "injured, battered, threatened". Nothing about his land fits his description.
But it is one statement that is disturbing, "Y2Y now includes 11 national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, provincial parks, wilderness lands, and increasingly, private lands." It is almost as if he is saying that Y2Y is its own territory, state, or providence. These parks, forests, land, and private lands are not included in any imaginary Y2Y boundary. Those lands belong to states, private owners, and national lands are only "managed" by the federal government, not owned. This article is a good clue into environmentalist thinking. There are no jurisdictional boundaries, no sovereignty, and a heavy misconception that Y2Y has some ownership of everything within its fabricated boundary.
0 Comments
While this Center for Biological Diversity article is 17 years old, it clearly describes the intent behind the push for wildlife corridors. The intent is to create corridors, not that they actually exist. As noted in other articles, wildlife corridors only serve the purpose of connectivity between protected areas with associated land use restrictions. That is why they have to be designed as wildlife do not understand they are between protected areas. These technocrats map it out only for their design of the land, how they think it should look and be managed, prevent development, and "become stronger advocates for changing human practices." Again, it is about control over land use, and us. Along with other conservation groups, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) has been an active participant in pursuing forest plan revisions for integrating their connectivity agenda and "connectivity on planning across land ownerships".
Have your elected officials include a ban on wildlife corridors, or any other type of corridor, in your comprehensive plan as these plans are one way in which corridors are advanced. It is imperative that corridor language is omitted as well as a statement that they will not be allowed. The Wilburforce Foundation is a major funding source for non-governmental organizations (NGO) towards supporting and connecting "organizations and individuals that are committed to protecting wild places and the wildlife that depend on them." It has a funding database where funded groups can be searched, and a map of the areas they cover.
The Sonoran Institute is another funding organization for conservation with multiple partners, especially federal agencies. It also interferes in communities, deciding they know best how communities should be designed and managed. Brainerd is another foundation that pours money into NGOs, including ones that heavily impact Idaho such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), Future West (FW), and the Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HORI). In turn, the money is dribbled down to other smaller groups such as FW money being used to fund projects for the HORI, and now defunct Henry's Fork Legacy Project (HFLP). This video explains how they want to "reshape" the Island Park area. Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) also shares money it recieves from foundations having funded GYC in 2015, 2013, and 2012 and FW in 2015, Clearly the goal is conservation objectives in the High Divide area in the HORI, and restrictive land use practices. Cinnabar is another foundation funding NGOs while the Ted Turner Foundation is funding multiple NGOs, including Y2Y. These are just a few examples of funding amounts these groups receive. Much fodder has been tossed around regarding those who oppose wildlife overpasses and their belief in conspiracies that it will eventually lead to control over land use. While this is simply fact, here is another addition that supports the eventual goal of control over land use. Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) hired Jodi Hilty in 2015 as President and Chief Scientist. Ms. Hilty is noted for her scientific work to help expand a national park, guiding polices for Path of the Pronghorn, connectivity, and scientific need for expanded land protections. She has also "...worked to connect and protect large ecosystems globally." Ms. Hilty's involvement in land use control goes deep. In this paper from 2014, Ms. Hilty co-authored, "Guidelines and Incentives for Conservation Development in Local Land-Use Regulations". That title says it all, "local land use regulations". The first sentence in the abstract, "Effective conservation of biological diversity on private lands will require changes in land-use policy and development practice." essentially negating any conspiracy theory about the eventual goal of land use control, control that will be accomplished through land-use policies such as comprehensive plans. Every citizen must keep a close eye on their comprehensive plans, especially when they are being updated. Watch for language that is vague, clustered or restricted development, conservation, green spaces, growth boundaries, regulated use of private property, any language that insinuates progression towards restricted or highly regulated land use policies. Create a citizen advisory group whose task it is to provide continued monitoring of land use plans and codes. If the time comes for comprehensive plan updates, the group must thoroughly examine the language, what was removed, what was added, then create their own plan based on what the community wants. This must be presented to the elected officials as a citizen guided plan for any changes. Don't forget, these planning folks create the plan and present it to you as a done deal. It is not a done deal, you as citizens have the right to make the final decision on how your community looks, and managed.
While conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been busy targeting land for conservation, it seems they aren't too busy to now target hunters and bring them into their nest.
The most explicit example is from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). As the title suggests, this is a group for conservation which typically means conserving land for non-use. A couple of things to note about this group. First, it is a partner with multiple non-governmental organizations (NGO) that primarily work to protect habitat and put all land into conservation for restricted use, and many of which also partner with Yellowstone to Yukon. Secondly, they are putting on a show of support for hunting and opening access to "landlocked public lands". This new tactic includes partnerships with corporations, NGOs, international organizations, land trusts, all with similar conservation objectives. TRCP's call for increasing the number of hunters is "...because the implications for conservation are dire...". Starting with their article, onX and TRCP Partner for Landlocked Public Access, these two groups begin with the premise that they will help increase access for hunters on public land. However, instead of meeting with true hunters they chose to meet with "outdoor media, conservation experts and industry leaders". These are the individuals who will be solving the hunter's problem of access? Their "report" will be taken to Washington D.C. for lobbying on your behalf. However, before they let you read that report they want information on you, so to spare the reader from this, here is the report, which is nothing more than a lobbying campaign for re-authorizing the LWCF. For those not familiar with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it is a Department of Interior (DOI) funding program for conservation and conservation groups, such as TRCP, who are frightened at the prospect they may lose this money for implementing their conservation goals. While the fund was originally intended for recreational access, it has become a money trough for federal acquisition of land and NGO conservation objectives, even Rep. Bishop recognizes this. What better way to correct this injustice than to initiate a Madison avenue advertising campaign that lures hunter support with a veiled ruse of supporting access to hunting. The LWCF is due to sunset at the end of September this year which is why this rubbish is being pursued so aggressively. In the article there is reference to a "checkerboard" of land ownership and that statement is significant for the plans being laid on how you will be allowed to hunt. Among other groups, Y2Y, Western Governor's Association (WGA), and Sec. Zinke are all in on the push to create wildlife corridors, which are often designated as protected land. In order to pursue their corridor objectives they must first resolve the checkerboard of land ownership which means, as much as possible, purchasing private land for conservation easements, which, as Rep. Bishop states, often ends up in federal hands. Corridors are used for linkage between protected areas such as national parks, forests, or wilderness areas for "connectivity". One egregious example in Idaho was the Stimpson Lumber conservation easement purchase, Clagstone Meadows. This land, in which Y2Y was involved, was purchased for linkage between protected areas and is now state owned land. TRCP defines "landlocked" land as "...federally managed lands that cannot be accessed directly from a public road (direct access) and cannot be accessed via adjoining public land by way of a public road (indirect access)." That means in their checkerboard scenario private land is the barrier. Case in point, the article states after analyzing public land data, they determined that access to public land is often inaccessible due to private land as a case in Montana was mentioned. It states they viewed "...a large swath of public land that, due to a strip of private land along the road, is wholly inaccessible to the public." In their scheme, if that private land could be placed into a conservation easement the public land would then be accessible. At least they were honest in identifying who would unlock that land, "...conservation groups and public land management agencies...". They are giving a dubious impression that suddenly there would be access to public land by conservation easements on private land. The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN) states their work is "...to identify the best places to target conservation and land protection proposals to provide recreational access for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts." How does conserved or protected land provide access? In reality it doesn't. Other conservation groups such as the High Divide Collaborative are vested in wildlife conservation with "landscape conservation design" methods, and it isn't for hunting access. It is about conserving land for more controlled, restricted, or banned use and any hunter can testify to the fact their access to hunting is being dramatically reduced and more difficult to access. Hopefully this explains why. According to the National Conservation Easement Database (click on Idaho), the majority of easements are held by the state, federal government, and NGOs with over 50% having closed access. Representation by elected officials was the way in which hunting used to be managed through legislation and statutes that determined how state agencies operated. Now those agencies are driven by special interest groups and corporations with no representation of Idaho hunters. While not listed as a partner on the TRCP website, their 2018 990 tax form form identifies their close relationship with government agencies. "Following the Interior Department's Secretarial Order 3362, initiating the first-ever policies aimed at conserving migration corridorts, the TRCP worked with governors, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the Bureau of Land Mangement to help agency officials prioritize the study and long-term conservation of individual deer, elk, and pronghorn migration routes. In late 2018, each of the 11 western states released action plans that prioritize conservation of these habitats. In Wyoming, the TRCP has been working to ensure that all BLM proposed energy leases located in migration corridors include stipulations that ensure the continued function of these habitats. Through local organizing, letters, mapping handouts, and media outreach we werre successful in persuading the BLM to defter some lease parcels in the 2018 quarter 3 and quarter 4 lease sales." While there is a plethora of other information regarding this issue, the message here is hunters beware. This media blitz by TRCP is nothing more than a covert way in which to make you believe they are advocating for you to increase access on public lands, but is really about using you to support their soon to end, taxpayer funded money stream for their conservation objectives which includes more land placed into conservation and turned over to federal and state hands. None of this increases access but rather contributes and accelerates continued limitations for hunting. The Sonoran Institute is an organization that believes its job across western states, and even Mexico, is to "connect people...with natural resources", "where people and wildlife live in harmony" and "where clean water, air, and energy are assured". Sonoran staff and board members are from all over the United States and include former National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees. Partners include federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and others. In 2012, Sonoran and the BLM launched a project called "Sustaining Large Landscape Conservation Partnerships: Strategies for Success. This was shortly after the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were illegally created in 2010 by the President at the time via a memorandum. Sonoran and the BLM held workshops "to highlight key principles for developing and sustaining landscape-scale collaborative efforts." Collaboration is a principle for all of these groups, collaboration between themselves that is. Seven principles for collaboration were identified for large landscape conservation partnerships to succeed in the long term. Those include building lasting relationships, agreeing on legal sideboards, encouraging diverse participation, working at an appropriate scale, empowering the group, sharing resources, and building internal support. While Sonoran also claims building at a grassroots level and encouraging diverse perspectives, none of it is true. All of these collaborators are individuals with the same ideology, there is nothing grassroots or community based about them, and diverse opinions are not typically tolerated. Why would these groups, so invested in conserving land for non-use, creating a wildlife zoo for animals over development, ever want to listen to someone who did not want these objectives in their community, let alone the deliberate ignoring of jurisdictional boundaries? The booklet is an interesting read for those who want a picture of their agenda for deciding how your community should look. One resource cited is the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC) which covers northwest states, including Idaho through its participation with Salmon Valley Stewardship in central Idaho and Heart of the Rockies Initiative which has a massive agenda to redesign land located in the High Divide. Collaboration is a big theme for those who wish to determine how rural communities should designed, from how people live, to how the land is used. But collaboration is really how these groups collaborate together, it does not include those who live in their targeted areas. Citizens in those areas should create their own collaborative group and counter every attempt for these groups to make decisions for them. Time is running short to stop these groups. 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. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|