What has not been covered on the Great Northern Large Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (GNLCC) is the fact that without any congressional approval the Department of Interior (DOI) engaged the Canadian government into the same cooperatives. Canadians are experiencing the same difficulty as us with regard to their land use being restricted or banned, and it is the same non-governmental organizations (NGO) with front groups that are implementing the GNLCC agenda for connectivity. This article is intended to educate Canadians on the GNLCC, the involvement by their provincial government agencies, and also educate U.S. citizens that our government is participating in this activity with a foreign country without any congressional approval or citizen involvement. Under the Library tab, at the bottom left corner, Alberta is listed as a category with information for your area.
This article is the first in a series to alert Canadians to a scam that also involves the United States, a plot involving both our governments to place our land into large landscape conservation and take our right to use our land away from us. Sound unbelievable? Read on.
In 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives. Twenty two cooperatives were created in the US. For purposes of this article, the focus will be on the Great Northern Large Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) and Alberta. As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia, including western Alberta, where many aggressive land use restrictions are being sought and other agendas for connectivity.
These cooperatives are a "regional" approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority. Both of our countries are under attack by the GNLCC. Meant to be an "international network", the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of US federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives. Just naming a few, GNLCC members include Alberta Land Trust Alliance, Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia, Y2Y Initiative, Alberta Prairie Conservation Forum, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement, or consent and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives. Concealed from us, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for use and why conservation initiatives have such influence over our governments, including Alberta. The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC (PPPLCC) covers the southeast portion of Alberta. These partnerships are listed on the Alberta Environment and Parks website, but they don't tell you about them or what they are doing.
The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others all work towards achieving GNLCC goals. In this document you will see the Government of Alberta, Environment Canada, and British Columbia are members of the GNLCC. There is also a map of the Crown of the Continent (COC) that includes the western portion of Alberta, but primarily engulfs British Columbia, and a map of connectivity targets. The Government of Alberta - Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC but when GNLCC and COC is searched on their website there is no information. They hide it from you.
Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, US federal agencies, and ENGOs. Brad Jones, Robert Sissions, and Megan Evans represent various Canadian government agencies on the COC leadership team, and the GNLCC has funded them. They have a "Transboundary Conservation Initiative" that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans. Alberta is in the crosshairs for their Strategic Conservation Framework. This is just one hidden group Canadians are fighting.
Basically, GNLCC believes land is "fragmented" by development, impeding the movement of wildlife. Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are "isolated" from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into forms of conservation so that there is a "link" between the protected areas for "connectivity". Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse. The British Columbia Ministry of Environment participated in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012 and 2015. As a partner, Y2Y also works to identify linkage zones. This short video explains connectivity.
To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and wildlife overpasses. They work to put land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat. If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for protection for wildlife movement. With that protection comes restrictive or banned use, and also justification for restrictive land use policies, including how a private property owner can use their land. According to Y2Y, "Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands." While this article is about the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem the same concepts apply to all GNLCC land for restrictive land use policies. Once a corridor is designated the next objective by GNLCC partners is requiring restrictive land use practices on adjacent land, including private property, attempting to extend the corridor, or procure a conservation easement. Anything goes for linkage.
Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need. The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners.
There are many initiatives working with the GNLCC which will be discussed later. But all of the objectives are the same. While distracting our attention with local issues that involve taking away our land use, behind the scenes they are diabolically plotting an agenda to put large landscapes into conservation that will take our land away from us and our ability to use it, and redesigning how we are allowed to use it, called landscape conservation design.
The SIPWO website has conducted research on this problem for a couple of years. It is time for Canada to join hands with the U.S. to fight and expose this corrupt governmental takeover of our land that erases our boundaries and sovereignty, strips us of our right to use our land, obliterates our right to representation, and in essence has created a shadow government that is in collusion with conservation initiatives. This is where the fight lies for both of us.
On September 2-3, 2015 the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) held a meeting on their connectivity initiative. The intent at this time was to address invasive species and connectivity across the GNLCC, working across jurisdictional boundaries, and share data. This "framework" also included conservation targets for ecosystems, habitat, and species. The map below is difficult to read but there is a definite focal target in the Island Park area.
Their "conservation outcomes" included conservation easements for key habitats and connectivity zones, road ecology (over & underpasses and fencing), fish passage for connectivity, and wildlife corridors. The wildlife corridor target includes Island Park.
While all of this is pretty clear about their intent to build on connectivity via conservation targets, they also laid out the larger picture for restricted use and banned access.
It is obvious that the longer term goal for overpasses, conservation easements, and wildlife corridors is to restrict use by people. It may sound fluffy and nice to build overpasses for vehicle collision reduction, but if overpasses are built a wildlife corridor declaration will be pursued next, followed by insistence on conservation of that corridor, with eventual full blown banned use.
As described by the GNLCC itself, this is what will happen if any overpasses are built in Island Park.
It is understood that all conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are attached to Washington D.C., they hob nob together, make their devious plans in partnership, and leave us out.
With the exposure of activity behind the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and others behind the effort to get wildlife overpasses built in Targhee Pass, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke has now incorporated them into the DOI workforce. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and these initiatives partner through the GNLCC, and it is a distinct probability that the DOI was advised of this exposure and investigated it. What better way to solve this exposure problem than to wave a magic wand and create a Secretarial Order (SO) that gives the GNLCC de facto authority to proceed. Even the Greater Yellowstone Coalition understands this.
On February 9, 2018, while attending the Western Conservation and Hunting Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sec. Zinke announced his SO 3362, which is meant to "...improve habitat quality and western big game winter range and migration corridors for antelope, elk, and mule deer."...foster "... collaboration with states and private landowners and facilitates all parties using the best available science to inform development of guidelines that helps ensure that robust big game populations continue to exist."...and "...help establish better migration corridors...". What a bunch of crock. In spite of all the lauding of his accomplishments on the DOI site, Sec. Zinke just pulverized anything positive for Idahoans with this SO.
DOI agencies, USFWS and National Park Service (NPS), give conservation initiatives authority in the GNLCC. One of the primary GNLCC objectives is migration corridors for connectivity. Essentially, Zinke just gave full authority to the GNLCC to continue in spite of the fact he revoked LCCs with SO 3349, which were created by SO 3289, and then advanced with SO 3330. SO 3362 essentially reinstates and expands what he just revoked with SO 3349.
There are several key sections of the SO 3362 that require scrutiny.
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of...Idaho...to enhance and improve the quality of...migration corridor habitat on Federal lands...that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.
Our Republic does not include federal partnerships with states, states are sovereign. Nowhere does this SO state that citizens or local governments are involved in these decisions, or those who would be the most impacted by land use changes. Private property is a right and protected by the Fifth Amendment and Idaho law, it is not something that can just be "respected" by a federal agency.
Page two states, "...it is crucial that the Department take action to harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors...if landowners are interested and willing, conservation may occur through voluntary agreements." Translated this means federal policy will become state policy, "harmonize". As a DOI program, the GNLCC is also being used to incorporate their objectives into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), and while landowners may be duped into "voluntary" agreements for conservation, initiatives work to get those conservation land use policies into local comprehensive plans, which will eventually become mandatory.
3c "Within 180 days, develop a proposed categorical exclusion for proposed projects that utilize common practices solely intended to enhance or restore habitat for species such as sage grouse and/or mule deer...". This essentially gives authority to maneuver around NEPA requirements, one of which is public participation.
Sec. 4.a.(1) ...identify an individual to serve as the “Coordinator” for the Department. The Coordinator will work closely with appropriate States, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or associations to identify active programs focused on...migration corridors. Again there is no citizen or local government involvement and the "and/or associations" is clearly referencing the DOI created GNLCC. This SO cements their authority and now drags in state agencies whose role up to this time has been fairly hidden in the GNLCC.
4.b.(1) With respect to activities at the State level...identify one person...to serve as the Liaison...will schedule a meeting with the respective State fish and wildlife agency...work in close partnership with the State on...migration corridor conservation.
Take note of that "conservation" wording. This is a slip by Zinke, the SO is really targeting land conservation, not improving big game hunting. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) already has a wildlife conservation program, one for "landowners", and a Habitat Improvement Program for private land owners. Now a federal "Liaison" will be interfering with these state programs.
4.b.(4) Assess State wildlife agency data regarding wildlife migrations early in the planning process for land use plans and significant project-level actions that bureaus develop.... As previously stated, the goal will be harmonizing federal planning with state planning, we will be living under a federal policy.
4.b.5(iii) working cooperatively with private landowners and State highway departments to achieve permissive fencing measures, including potentially modifying (via smooth wire), removing (if no longer necessary), or seasonally adapting (seasonal lay down) fencing if proven to impede movement of big game through migration corridors;
Zinke just gave the GNLCC and conservation initiatives the authority to continue their camaraderie with ITD for integration of overpasses and fencing, forcing wildlife into different migratory paths, leading to the creation of a corridor.
4.b.5(iv) avoiding development in the most crucial winter range or migration corridors during sensitive seasons;
4.b.5(v) minimizing development that would fragment winter range and primary migration corridors;.
There it is, the truth, the goal is restricting use or banning land development within or adjacent to a migratory corridor.
4.d.(3) Consult with State wildlife agencies and bureaus to ensure land use plans are consistent...to one another along the entire wildlife corridor...where...migration corridors span jurisdictional boundaries.
Zinke is referring to local comprehensive or land use plans, and jurisdictional boundaries includes private property. It is critical that citizens engage with elected officials on comprehensive plans, ensuring no reference is made to corridor protection or conservation. If local land use plans do not reference these then federal policy for corridors and conservation will be inconsistent with local policy and the feds will have more difficulty proceeding with conservation policies until consistency is reached. Coordination is in federal law, written into USFS, BLM, and FHA (23 CFR 774.5) laws, that coordination shall occur between the federal and local governments to ensure consistency between land use policies. It is not consulting, cooperating, or collaborating because coordination puts the local government on an equal footing with the feds, not subordinate. The feds do not like this law, they would like to just mow over local governments and us with their plans, without coordination, The 10th Amendment guarantees this protection for states and its citizens and recently the Idaho Senate addressed the coordination requirement in SJM103.
4.b.5(i) Habitat management goals and associated actions as they are associated with big game winter range and migration corridors;
This statement references the creation of other corridors which can include riparian, biodiversity, or ecosystems, potentially expanding federal control over land use because these habitat types extend from public land into state and private land. An example is his reference to "sagebrush ecosystems...other ecotypes...and sagebrush landscapes". A migration corridor will require other types of corridors to support wildlife. A habitat management example is the Sage Grouse, of which sage brush protection was needed for its habitat. Translated, "Habitat Management" means conservation or protection. Not only will SWAP plans be used as they identify species and habitat of greatest conservation need, but Zinke also plans to use the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) as a mapping tool for land use (4.c.).
The subject of the SO is "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors". In that title, where does it indicate the SO will "...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...". Priority habitats are those typically protected for a game species as in the Sage Grouse example. What is meant by "improved" priority habitats? Corralling wildlife with fencing? Moving all humans and development out of the way? Creating pseudo corridors that already exist and which already cross private property without any problems?
This West Is Our West has an excellent article, written by Clifford C. Nichols, Is Zinke 'Migration Corridors' order the Endangered Species Act on Steroids? His article brings out some other pertinent points on the SO.
Sec. Zinke isn't fooling anyone. His goal is conservation and control over land use. It is appalling that all of this activity is hidden from us and strips us of our "consent of the governed" role. Without any federal law he is sanctioning an expanded, behind the scenes, directive that further erodes our right to local representation and state sovereignty. Sec. Zinke, Idahoans have not given consent to your SO 3362.
This is the fifth of a six part series. The reader is highly encouraged to go to these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
It is critical to understand the massive number of organizations who are involved in this connectivity agenda and who align with government agencies to advance it.
In 2010, the Obama administration issued a memorandum, creating the America's Great Outdoors Initiative without any federal legislation, and assigning eight federal agencies to implement it. Two objectives were the creation of "corridors and connectivity", and advancing those "priorities through public private partnerships". A DOI order created 22 large landscape cooperatives across the U.S. with Island Park sitting in the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC). These cooperatives were tasked with coordinating all landscape conservation groups, including partnering federal agencies, placing land into conservation, and connecting them into large landscapes. There are 56 landscape initiatives that belong to the GNLCC including Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Greater Yellowstone Coalition Committee (GYCC), Western Governors Association (WGA), and multiple land trusts. Here is their Steering Committee.
But there are other large landscape conservation groups as well.
Gary Tabor is the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), co-founded the Y2Y Conservation Initiative, the Roundtable of the COC, and co-designed the Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative. The Conservation Corridor, an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) program, facilitates wildlife corridor and ecological connectivity conservation, of which Mr. Tabor is the regional leader Vice Chair. As recent as 2016, Mr. Tabor was participating with the IUCN for Areas of Connectivity Conservation. Here is the CLLC network of partners.
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), "is the collective of the 22 LCCs collectively", whose council consists of the BLM, USFS, NPS, USFWS, among others; NGOs NatureServe and TNC; four international participants; and the CLLC.
The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC), was created by the University of Montana and Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (LILP). Their mission is "helping people work effectively across boundaries to...protect...or connect natural systems at the large landscape scale...", and support an "enduring system of protected and connected natural systems at the large landscape scale." Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield are on the coordinating committee. The LILP has a Large Landscape Conservation Strategic Framework for Policy and Action.
The WGA plans to launch a pilot project for wildlife mapping, identifying areas where development can occur with minimal impacts to wildlife, with Island Park being one project areas. Phase 1 includes inventorying species, habitat, unfragmented landscapes, protected habitats, and geographic features while evaluating connectivity tools and models in cooperation with NatureServe and WCS ongoing efforts to formulate connectivity best management practices. The project promises to contact all relevant stakeholders within the pilot area at the initiation of the project, including but not be limited to: Y2Y, WCS, and TNC. The project intends to hold at least 2 "stakeholder" meetings, with Island Park being one of those communities. By the end of Phase 1 they plan on having a "Completed connectivity/linkage plan identifying steps, tools, and outcomes for producing a connectivity data layer for the entire ID‐MT divide project area." The NGOs and HD must be thrilled. No start date was listed.
The Brainerd Foundation funds the NGOs Earthjustice, TNC, SC, WS, and NWF; COC, GYC, Y2Y, FW, and HOR initiatives; the Henry's Fork Foundation and Sonoran Institute. The Sonoran Institute partners with the TNC, WS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Wilburforce Foundation (WCS partner) funds Y2Y, and the Turner foundation also funds these agendas.
As one can see, there are a substantial number of groups involved in this connectivity agenda, as well as money pouring in from wealthy individuals with the same ideology, and your tax dollar. But where are the voices whose heritage is bonded and connected to Island Park? Their voice, with first rights in importance, has been left out.
The US 20 Corridor has a website specific to the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment (EA) phase of the project. It states ITD, following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, is initiating an EA to evaluate risks, benefits, opportunities and costs associated with reconstruction of Targhee Pass, with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead agency.
ITD has been studying the US 20 transportation corridor for 13 years, working with IDFG and the Henry's Fork Legacy Project (HFLP), assessing its condition, and identifying necessary improvements. Three studies were conducted during that time. 2014 (Cramer) - Methodology for Prioritizing Appropriate Mitigation Actions to Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions on Idaho Highways; 2014 (Seidler) - US 20 Island Park Wildlife Collision Study - an examination of Road Ecology in the Island Park Caldera: Elk and Moose migration across US Highway 20 - Final Report; and 2016 (Cramer) - Safety Solutions for Wildlife Vehicle Collisions on Idaho’s US 20 and SH 87. Technocrats and individuals from outside the area have the lead voice here.
According to the website it was also during this time "one-on-one conversations with local agencies, municipalities, tribes and other key stakeholders" also took place, which were used for the Targhee Pass Environmental Study. ITD states comments on wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC) were "received in the scoping phase" of the study. Aside from the IDFG, HFLP, and technocrats, who? What Tribes?
The website states the NEPA process begins when a federal agency develops a proposal to take a major federal action or (as in this case) when federal funds would be utilized to implement a project. Federal funds were approved for this project in October, 2016. So the NEPA process was started prior to the funding? What does federal law say?
§ 23 CFR 771.119 Environmental Assessments, § 771.111 Early coordination, Public involvement, and Project Development, and § 450.210 Interested parties, Public involvement, and Consultation, all require public involvement for transportation planning and actions requiring an EA. This is accomplished through an early coordination process and is incorporated into the EA which should be available for public inspection. One or more public hearings...at a convenient time and place for any...project which requires significant amounts of right-of-way, substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting roadways...or has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property are also part of the law. The state is also required to develop and use a documented public involvement process that provides opportunities for public review and comment at key decision points. What opportunity for involvement were citizens granted during the studies, or even from the beginning 13 years ago?
§ 23 USC 128: Public Hearings states, "Any State transportation department which submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving the by passing of or, going through any city, town, or village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall certify to the Secretary that it has had public hearings, or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and has considered the economic and social effects of such a location, its impact on the environment, and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community." The ITD excluded all of this. Were public hearings held regarding proposed actions on the corridor, during a time when all were in residency?
The website claims "The first step in the environmental assessment process is called scoping. This is an opportunity for the community to help identify issues and concerns specific to the study corridor." According to their timeline a study initiation and stakeholder assessment occurred in October, 2016. One public meeting was held in December with comments incorporated to refine alternatives and impact assessment methods in January, 2017. The subsequent April meeting was cancelled. The ITD Corridor Planning Guidebook mandates public participation and county official involvement at the beginning of any proposed project. Does it sound like the public and county criteria were met? How could it be the initiation of the project when studies had already been conducted, deals were made with other agencies, and only select groups involved?
Community based organizations are also listed as important groups for outreach. Aside from the HFLP, the majority who don't live in Island Park, what other community based organizations were contacted? Island Park residents should give serious consideration to creating a Civic Advisory Committee for transportation decisions, separate from NGOs and select groups, for comprehensive perspectives. More importantly, this project should be started over and conducted according to the law.
The ITD has clearly failed in meeting the public involvement requirement during the transportation planning. Open houses were scheduled during months when the majority were not in residence, and when the most difficult winter road conditions existed. A public hearing was never offered during a time when all were in residency. In addition, required socio-economic factors were clearly not included in the proposal or in any of the studies. Is it possible neither the NGOs or the ITD wanted the truth to come out?
If this Targhee Pass project moves forward, Island Park better prepare for possible land use planning changes that will follow. As previously mentioned, Northwest Property Owners Association (NWPOA) went through this nightmare but successfully stopped it. Their local NGO attempted to incorporate restrictive regulations into their county comprehensive plan which included: requirements for using qualified design professionals; assessments and studies for professional design and best management practices; zoning restrictions; impact fees; development moratoriums; growth limits; and incorporation of state and/or federal laws. ScienceDirect has an excellent article, Land use planning: A potential force for retaining habitat connectivity in the GYE and Beyond, that is full of the scams taking place now, including the belief that "...counties could exert more power in controlling private land development." Defenders of Wildlife promote using State Wildlife Action Plans to link conservation with land use planning. Both are worth reading to understand future agendas if this connectivity project moves forward.
Conclusion in Part 6.
The federal government created a beast, landscape conservation cooperatives (LLC) for wildlife protection, sprouting in 2011 following the "America Great Outdoors" initiative in 2010. No congressional approval came with this, the Department of Interior (DOI) just created it and assigned the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement it. The FWS claims it is "...self-directed partnerships between federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other entities...". Yeah, right.
In the article, Kiss Idaho Goodbye, the discussion centered around only the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC). But that is only part of the story. Here is the rest of the map.
The rest of Idaho will be taken by the Great Basin LCC (GBLCC). Here is the GBLCC Strategic Plan for your southern Idaho area.
Like all of the other 21 LLCs in the United States, GBLCC networks with other LLCs through the Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN). This network is pretty boastful about crossing all boundaries in its work, across state and county lines, and with other countries, in fact sucking up every piece of dirt in the United States. One of their goals is habitat connectivity which includes helping what they think are ignorant animals figure out how to migrate without getting hit by a vehicle, thus requiring their own personal passage. Of course, the LCCN includes the United Nations (UN) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a close partner. What the IUCN promotes, the network delivers to all of their little conspirators.
Another group, the Network for Landscape Conservation, works with the IUCN and National Park Service (NPS), but looks suspiciously like an NPS program similar to FWS.
One section not discussed in the first article was the Salmon Selway which is part of the Trust for Public Land (TPL). TPL partners with corporations, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a UN organization, and Disney, a UN partner. One of its jobs is to protect public lands from going into your hands, let alone allowing you to use them in your area. The other activity they engage in is purchasing land for conservation easements which ultimately tightens the connectivity and puts more land into government hands. Here is an example of their other dirty work in Georgia, buying private property and putting it into the hands of the National Park Service. Incidentally, TPL was founded by a former director of the Nature Conservancy.
Being part of the TPL, the Salmon Selway has been used to "...conserve the most critical private lands...", that is, putting that land into government hands. The map in the link will show you the areas they have stolen from Idahoans.
So the federal government created a system where they could hide themselves behind their partnership with UN affiliated buddies to do their dirty work up front, and create scams to steal more land from Idahoans. What exactly are they doing?
Well, we have to keep going back to the IUCN as the federal government partners with them along with these other treasonous little groups, whether directly or indirectly.
As an IUCN partner the FWS supports funding and implementing ICUN programs, many of which are conservation programs such as conservation connectivity. In this IUCN document, they call these Areas of Conservation Connectivity (ACC), which "...interconnect protected areas and in doing so, they help integrate these areas into wider...landscapes..." (pg 25), which is exactly what the LCCs are doing. Thank goodness it will allow movement of individuals, actual humans, among habitat patches within home ranges (pg 31). The primary objective is to "...conserve and actively manage migratory route connectivity and the underpinning natural habitats..."(pg 32). The LCCs implemented by FWS initiatives are playing "...an increasingly important role in biodiversity conservation and in helping to achieve Target 11 of the CBD Strategy 2011-2020 (pg 40), another UN agenda. The IUCN also believes these areas should be "transboundary" (pg 27), and have had their eyeballs on West Yellowstone with their global conservation movement. Sorry IUCN, Yellowstone does not belong to you. You may have the arrogance to call it a Heritage site, but it is an American site, and as such, belongs to Americans.
In spite of the IUCN claim that there should be "community involvement", the truth is this agenda is primarily driven by the federal government with its UN affiliated groups and foundations. Small communities like Island Park are being terrorized by all of them, the very people who live there, have roots there, and who care most about and understand the area.
But with the new Agenda 2030 Goal 15, much progress is being made to take land away from us, put it into the hands of the UN and federal government, and continue the march towards the dismantling of America.
And these groups call themselves Americans. Being an American while engaging in these activities is a dichotomy for which each of them should search their souls and beg for absolution.
As seen from the full picture, Kiss Idaho Goodbye.
Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC)
America's destruction continues to survive as long as programs are still being implemented that destroy us. For Idaho, not only is there the Columbia River Treaty re-negotiations that will take control of all water resources, there is also another major land take over.
There are a multitude of Idaho non-profits and United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO) that are aggressively pursuing connectivity projects. Essentially the goal is to connect large swaths of land in Idaho's east corner which neighbors Montana and Wyoming. They would love to see this land all locked up into one major landscape of wilderness, for wildlife only.
The Crown of the Continent (COC), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GCY), and the land trust partnership group Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOTRI), are just a few of the organizations that are destructively working to create wildlife corridors in the Island Park area.
Each of these organizations are connected to UN NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy (NC), Wilderness Society (WS), and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Don't be fooled by the new UN addition in red, a disclaimer that unless the organization is in consultative status it does not connote affiliation with the UN. That is flat out not true. And like children playing in a sandbox these groups all play with each other, are interconnected, and overwhelm us with their agenda.
Anyway, here is the map that shows how much land they are after with the Salmon Selway not even included in this discussion. This map is proudly displayed on the WCS website, a trophy of the successful tromping of Idaho.
Quite a bit of money contributes to this takeover. Just the Greater Yellowstone alone has over 10 million dollars in their coffers. Where do they get all that money? Part of it is your tax dollar.
Now your tax dollar goes to this in other ways as well. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) believes in creating wildlife corridors which eventually contribute to connectivity and have spent your money to study it and figure out how many wildlife are affected by collisions. Forget how it has impacted humans. You are even paying your governor to participate in this through the Western Governors' Association (WGA).
But don't forget the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), your state taxes are used for this nonsense as well. Four years ago Idaho Fish & Game honored an ITD Senior Environmental Planner for his success in collectively garnering over 718,000 dollars to study (affectionately known as the Cramer study) where wolverines and bears migrate, and a study to prioritize wildlife collision areas. Here is the 2016 report and on page 6 you can see all the recommended overpasses, underpasses, fencing, traffic calming, and driver warning systems for Highway 20 in Island Park. What is truly remarkable about this is while our Idaho roads and bridges crumble there is plenty of money to spend on figuring out where cars collide with wildlife and put money into building a road for them. And here is the Highway 20 priority map for those animals. Now it makes sense why Idaho registration fees went up and why the current legislature has a huge task in front of them to fund transportation. Those bunnies need a safe passageway.
Now there are many working tirelessly on this so surely it must all be coordinated together. Who else but the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the rescue for connectivity. Established by the Department of Interior (DOI), it is an "international" network to advance collaborative landscape conservation. Here is the amount of land the GNLCC wants to take and a link to the data they have been collecting. Remember, this is the federal government doing it, not some obscure group. There are a multitude of participants, including multiple UN affiliates, making decisions about Idaho.
In a nutshell, the DOI created an organization that promotes these UN affiliated lunatics taking more land away from Idahoans. Originating in 2009 with order 3289, and advancing it with order 3330, then announcing the truth to "develop opportunities to further establish partnerships that benefit Tribes and Federal agencies" in order 3342.
The National Park Service (NPS) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) were granted the privilege of administering the GNLCC in 2010. The implementation plan includes partnerships with land protection NGOs and land trusts, Canada, IUCN, USFS, and the BLM while using the Endangered Species Act to justify its means. Of course they are using your tax dollar to stick it to you, not only in this way but in grants as well, up to one million.
But the truth is, it is just the UN agenda. As a partner to the DOI, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been promoting connectivity for a very long time. As well, the FWS has its own comradery with the UN for migratory species protection. According to Agenda 2030, Goal 15.5, we are assigned the task to "Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats...". Roadkill should certainly be a focus to ensure a natural habitat is protected in a way that it does not cause harm to the animal. As this Agenda 2030 document explains in #33, "We are therefore determined to conserve and...protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife." Look forward to paying for animal roads.
The federal and state governments, as usual, are taking our money and using it against us, turning it over to UN groups for them to implement UN objectives. Can President Trump undo all of this? Or will it take the masses to finally stand up and say no more. How can the tiny community of Island Park fight this off? What are our legislators doing to stop this? Idahoans just continue to see our state being eaten up by government with its UN partnerships.
Kiss Idaho Goodbye.
It must be time to transform Island Park into something else using "action plans". The question is, what needs to be transformed? What in Island Park needs fixing? The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has been working tirelessly for 10 years, inspecting Island Park with partnering "experts", creating a list of "problems" they deem necessary to fix, and then creating a plan to fix those problems "they" identified! This endeavor was for the revision of the State Wildlife Action Plan, or SWAP. These "experts" have identified conservation targets and the "threats" to those targets. The plan focuses on conserving fish and wildlife while helping humans "benefit" those species that need the most "help". This help by humans will be "voluntary" but the true goal is preventing all human activity that might endanger wildlife, and taking private land. Isn't it amazing that in spite of all federal and state agency work, and human activity, these species have managed to survive without these newly suggested efforts to help them, while at the same time managing to cohabitate with humans in healthy enough numbers to be studied in spite of the threats being identified?
The Island Park area is now considered to be part of the Yellowstone Highlands, defined as an ecological subregion by the US Forest Service (USFS), because it comprises the western margins of the Yellowstone Plateau. This is most likely a deliberate choice as one eventual goal is to incorporate the Island Park area into the Yellowstone system, whether in the park itself or the protected lands within the "ecosystem". Currently, this is being accomplished through incremental demand that wildlife should have access to habitat outside of the park perimeter, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wanted with the buffalo, and the Nature Conservancy. It will only be a matter of time before the demand is made that all wildlife have the right to access habitat across boundaries, with Island Park being a target for incorporation into Yellowstone. By the way, the NRDC and Nature Conservancy are both United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO).
Here is a map of all the "ecological sections" in the state so you can check yours out but the Section names might be unfamiliar to you. You will also notice that these Sections cross county lines, which is deliberate.
Now without having to wade through this whole document, here is the Section on the Yellowstone Highlands. But if you do have the time, here is the 1,458 page document that explains everything.
Island Park sits right smack dab in a caldera created years ago from volcano activity, making it an ecologically significant area. But to the people who have lived there, and still do, the beauty of the area is really in their hearts, it is their HOME, not some Latin specimen. The Section begins by detailing the geographical and ecological aspects of the area, reducing it into nothing more than a dry statistical and scientific read that at times might be hardly understandable to the casual reader. Within these pages humans are identified as the terrible souls who are responsible, and at fault, for destroying habitat and wildlife.
The Section notes that housing has "tripled" since 1963 with an "...estimated 150 square miles of currently undeveloped private land...", predicting that it will be altered with more housing in the next 10 years, while insinuating that the destruction is the result of private land use. To disrupt or prevent this habitat destruction, the plan targets 5 habitat conservation areas (forest, Aspen, riparian forest, wetlands, Henry's Lake Flat), and for good measure 2 wildlife species, the ungulate and grizzly which face "special conservation needs". These targeted conservation areas include private land. The plan identifies Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), ranging from bees, owls, toads, bats, loons, grouse, wolverines, cranes, swans, down to the tiny duskysnail. These species have associated conservation targets, meaning land. And realistically, there is at least one of these critters on each piece of private land.
Just one warning side note, for the "regionally rare" ungulate, the target is to "...capture the process of ungulate seasonal migration and resource use
through the area as well as more localized species movement. Includes
seasonal, transitional, and stopover habitat." (You know, the ones that stop for a cup of joe on their journey, or may find the habitat favorable and decide to stay awhile). "US Hwy 20 presents a threat to connectivity... (and) potential expansions...would decrease permeability. Rural residential development also poses current and future threats to key transitional habitat in Shotgun Valley, Henry's Lake Flat, and the south rim of the caldera." For those who live in those areas watch out, IDFG or an NGO will be knocking on your door to tie up your land for a "regionally rare" animal.
Through mapping, the plan identifies the Lodge Pole pine as the dominant tree with a sprinkling of Douglas Fir. For locals and just by observation one has to wonder how much it cost to figure that out. But since these trees are homes to the critters, the experts decided the trees provide "low value for sustaining biodiversity", meaning a poor quality habitat. Interesting. Just how did those critters survive so long in this inadequate housing? They go on to mention some of the bushes in the area like sagebrush, chokecherry, and yum, huckleberry. The experts also decided these conifers were encroaching upon the Aspen population. Maybe if the USFS would allow proper thinning this wouldn't happen.
Now what could be worse than Douglas-fir habitats being "threatened by fire exclusion and rural residential development, while mature coniferous forests are most threatened by habitat fragmentation from roads.", citing that " low
–intensity fires maintain a naturally diverse stand composition and structure that benefits a wide range of wildlife...". Prescribed burns have been used for generations by Tribes and ranchers and these experts are just now getting a clue? The USFS was the federal agency that reduced prescribed burning so now a law is needed to allow it again. Where is the logic in any of this? By their own admission "Fire suppression has also greatly reduced the presence of aspen...". So the federal government, once again, has created a catastrophe that has to be fixed with another law.
According to the plan, "Roads can have negative impacts on fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals...", and "...many roads have been gated under the assumption that limited use by “administrative traffic” will not unduly disturb elk and other wildlife. Unfortunately, this assumption is untrue, and even a limited amount of administrative traffic behind closed gates provides more than adequate reinforcement of the avoidance behavior”. That is the IDFG talking, a truck rolling through every month causes animals to avoid the area. Previous closures and restricted access has now become no human access or use. Alleged damage from ATVs, motorcycles, or snowmobiles can be read about in the Section, but most Idahoans know that seasonal changes remove any evidence of casual use, not long term damage, and the habitat is still there.
According to the IDFG, agriculture, livestock grazing, housing development, recreation, and timber harvest are all land uses causing negative impact in the Yellowstone Highlands. To read about all the alleged damage you can go to page 492 in the Section. Also, these "...land uses have fragmented riparian habitat, reducing connectivity necessary for species movements." Once again connectivity is mentioned, it is the theme for all future landscape planning. But it is connectivity for wildlife and habitat, not humans or private property.
Just know, the IDFG states, "This region is a national conservation priority landscape...". The true goal is locking up all the land in that area by increasing restricted use, including private property. Also, "...lower elevation lands in the GYE have some of the most productive habitats, but also face many looming threats, particularly on private lands." The plan also highlights the conservation importance of the Yellowstone Highlands "for maintaining the ecological integrity of the GYE (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem)." This is right where Island Park lies and why banning human activity is so important. This is the same goal for the rest of the state.
For any private land owner who is contemplating a conservation easement (CE), read this document first. It should also be read by those who have already placed their land in easements. Idaho Statute 55, Chapter 21 covers the law regarding CE, while 55-2102(3) states, "...a conservation easement is unlimited in duration unless the instrument creating it otherwise provides." 55-2103 covers CE court actions. CE are nothing more than a tool used by the federal government to shift private land into public land classification. Conservation easements rob the county of revenue, can be resold to the government for a higher price, and can increase property taxes for others. Placing private land into public hands is one major reason CE and land trusts are heavily promoted in the SWAP plan. Protect your rights by understanding the laws, don't believe what NGOs tell you.
The people who worked on this report included multiple state and federal agencies, UN NGOs, Tribes, and Land Trusts. Were the citizens who live in Island Park thoroughly notified and allowed to have input into what is being done to them? Oh, pardon, there was a paltry 45 that provided public input, along with an organized number from participating NGOs, 3 webinars, and one meeting in Boise. At what point will "voluntary" participation become mandatory? For all their hard work, the IDFG will be rewarded by the federal government with more money for their extremism. But what is the true source of this larger landscape transformation?
As a partner to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a UN participant, the US Fish and Wildlife Service implements IUCN objectives, one of which is addressing "threats' to wildlife, habitats, wetlands, etc., and advocating for special land protections.
IUCN categorizes different protected areas. Category IV is Habitat/Species Management Area and best applies to what IDFG has done in their new plan. Since the Yellowstone Highlands is considered part of the GYE, the IUCN Category II also applies, which focuses on maintaining a whole ecosystem. Here is a shorter version of Category II. It all lines up with the IDFG plan.
The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), another UN outfit, has made another aggressive push for this agenda in their "Global Forest Goals" this year, specifically Goals 2.5, 3.1, 6.2, and 6.3. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), has the same priorities.
Here are a couple of other interesting articles on this from CFACT and the Wyoming Daily Independent.
Many of these IDFG "experts" may not appreciate the disclosure and exposure of the truth in this article. There is growing awareness of this agenda along with growing outrage by Idaho citizens. The outrage is knowing a state agency willingly follows UN dictates, partners with UN NGOs to advance UN ideology, implements UN practices over and over which are destructive to our land, while at the same time, advancing UN ideology that the destruction is due to climate change. Idaho citizens are also outraged that the state, and federal government, are using aggressive and covert tactics towards private land and its use, using legal instruments and foot soldiers to take land from Idahoans for their possession, while banning traditional practices and uses through their agencies. To advance this agenda, federal agencies are promoting a growing, forceful regulatory stance with blurring of jurisdictional boundaries.
Idahoans are no fools, they know the land better than any UN or IDFG partnered "expert". Idahoans have been forced to sit by and watch the destruction of our land, private property, liberties, and theft of their land through deception. Rather than working with its own citizens to solve concerns, IDFG chooses the UN and its partners.
It cannot be denied that the federal government partners with the UN to advance and implement its policies which has subsequently trickled down to affect every Idahoan. Need more evidence? In the top right hand column of page 45157 in this 1998 federal register it clearly states the federal government is implementing Agenda 21, and this was just the beginning. It is more insidious now as the term used is "sustainable development". Sustainable development is Agenda 21. The IDFG plan is outlined in Agenda 21, Chapter 15, and now in Agenda 2030 Goal 15. It is not a conspiracy, it is fact.
Idahoans, not just those in Island Park and Fremont county (forget that other name), are encouraged to look at the plan and how it will affect their area under the SWAP Ecological Sections here.
The use of endangered species, including ecosystem and habitat protection, are the means to the end in achieving the goal of putting more land into the federal government hands and force Idahoans out. Don't fall for it! Fight back and say NO when they come to your door. Tell all of them, NGOs and government officials, their hidden agenda is known to you. Know the law. Ask them, where is the law, whether state or federal, that gives them the authority to do this? They will stumble because there is no federal or state law. Do everything you can to make them understand their agenda is not welcome, will not be tolerated, or accepted in your community. Educate them on the truth, and keep educating them until they understand, all the while not complying with their plans.
Do whatever you can to never have to say, So Long, Island Park.