Tremendous dichotomies exist with land management. Money pours in for forest fire prevention while at the same time forests are allowed to become burdened with fuel loads that only act as incinerators. "We let forests burn" is an insane ideology. Fires destroy the habitat environmentalists crusade to protect. The introduction of wolves has resulted in the loss of wildlife, one issue environmentalists champion for protection. Renewable energy is one of the most damaging to the environment under the guise of protecting it. One doozy of a dichotomy exists with Elk and Deer. Are potential causes of disease in these majestic animals being ignored or dismissed for a reason?
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a fatal disease affecting Elk, Deer, Moose, and other wildlife, where the animal experiences neurological deterioration. It first appeared at Slate Creek in Idaho County, November 2021. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) claims CWD is a Prion disease, a malformed protein that enters the brain, with no understanding of "how it is spread". But the actions they are taking to minimize the spread, which speak louder than their words, suggest they believe it is spread by direct contact. The animal eventually wastes away from a poor immune response, starvation, and weakness. IDFG focuses on minimizing its spread and developed a strategy in 2021 that includes surveillance and monitoring with the help of hunters, along with "cutting deer density to reduce CWD risk". . Elk Hoof Disease (EHD) was also discovered in Idaho County in 2018. This disease is blamed on a Treponema spirochete bacterium that is suspected to cause hoof abnormalities and lameness in elk, leading to poor health and death. It was recently discovered that it is spread by "exposure to soil contaminated with hooves from affected elk". Drawing this conclusion, however, is problematic as this study gave limited consideration to other soil or environmental factors, failed to use pesticide contaminated soil, artificially created a condition with an overabundance of a pathogen, and wrapped the Elk's hooves in inoculation, creating an environment that would not be found on Elk in the wild. This map shows where EHD has been discovered in the Pacific Northwest. While Prion and Treponema have nothing to do with each other, what IDFG is failing to consider is soil health and how that may be contributing to the spread of both diseases. Why would they ignore that possibility? Idaho has a Noxious Weed program for invasive species in which IDFG participates because of its invasion into Elk forage. Biological treatment is emphasized for elimination of these weeds however, "chemical treatment is the most common option where feasible". IDFG, however, is rather secretive about what chemicals they use. The US Forest Service also has a Pesticide Management program that does not identify what chemicals are used. Commonly used pesticide agents include Glyphosate, Atrazine, 2,4-D, and Milestone. It is well known that these chemicals destroy everything in their path and have toxic effects to humans. One hypothesis is that these chemicals also cause EHD. Atrazine is particularly devastating to the immune system. Other contributing pesticides to EHD and CWD are Sulfonylurea and Diuron as both can inhibit microbial activity in the soil. Overall, these chemicals not only destroy Elk forage, they also have a damaging effect on soil health. While many variables determine how long pesticides remain in the soil, they can persist up to a decade. Manganese is "an essential human dietary element" found in soil and plants. Manganese deficiency can lead to gut and immune dysfunction, and has a relationship to Prion disease. Studies have shown that Glyphosate depletes Manganese in plants. Selenium, another trace element in soil necessary for plant development, is also dependent on soil microorganisms and cannot be easily applied to soil. Its depletion in soil has also been associated with deteriorating animal health by disrupting a healthy immune system, again suggestive of CWD, and in hoof deformities. Chemical spraying, and its adverse impact on soil, does appear to be a common source for both diseases, yet it has not been adequately researched. At hand is the lack of consideration that pesticides not only kill noxious weeds, but also destroy living organisms in the soil that maintains its health. In fact, the same corporations that produce pesticides are touting their investments in soil health, while claiming that poor soil health is from climate change. But the truth is they destroy the soil in order to put forward profit making solutions. To the rescue is lucrative corporate markets that create products to fix the problems they create. Corporations have even hijacked associations to advance their cause. Syngenta products include herbicides, and through its Biologicals, and its partner Valagro, sells products to fix the damage they cause as part of its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Brexil Combi, made by Valagro, contains a Manganese replacement. Monsanto, producer of Glysophate products, was bought by Bayer in 2016. As was Monsanto, both Syngenta and Bayer are World Economic Forum (WEF) partners. Along with its government pals, Bayer has declared Glyphosate as safe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Bayer also blames climate change and loss of biodiversity as a problem while having several products that actually destroy biodiversity, and is being fined for its false safety claims. Corteva, a descendant of DuPont, produces Milestone. Called Aminopyralid, it is a pesticide that tends to remain in the soil and carry over and damage new growth. Could ruined soil be the planned precursor to invest in "microbial-based solutions", or completely revamp soil composition, all the while messing around with RNA genetics and engineering soil microorganisms? Like everything else going on right now, corporations have their own misinformation (let's call it what it is, lying) campaign that using less pesticides would contribute to the global climate crisis. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is putting up a front to address the pesticide problem, it is a partner with the same cabal that corporations are tied to. In the EPA's interest to protect corporations, the whole federal government is similarly involved, including the US Forest Service, but were finally forced to admit ecological damage from these products. Don't touch their products that destroy the land as that would in turn destroy their self-created markets that will fix it! And these corporations are not afraid to give dictates to the government. The corruption is so widespread a book has even been written about it. Thus the dichotomy. Corporations use destructive means to destroy the environment while claiming it adds to food production, and lay blame on climate change in order to enrich their own profits. Through the use of chemicals the soil is destroyed, wildlife movement through the chemically contaminated soil can spread it to other areas while being exposed to an overgrowth of invasive bacterium that cause disease and possibly eating the sprayed forage along the way, soil is being depleted of necessary nutrients for life, and the land then becomes a haven for disease. Wildlife loss is of no concern to them and warnings about the dangers of these products would logically be the same for wildlife. Could it be Elk are actually spreading the cause of the problem rather than the disease itself? Pesticides destroy soil microbiology. Why has this not been a focus as it has been in other prion studies? In Idaho County where CWD and EHD were found, there is a noxious weed problem with Yellow Starthistle. While biocontrol methods have been tried they aren't successful in controlling the problem and in addition to other areas in the state. chemical spraying is used, Glyphosate and Aminopyralid being the most effective. Oddly, cattle, sheep, and goat grazing are not used to address this weed problem. Cheatgrass is another noxious weed where Yellow Starthistle is found, and is controlled with spraying. Again, cattle grazing is not used to contain this weed. Corporations that produce these pesticides wield quite a bit of influence over the government. If IDFG were to challenge the use of pesticides as the causal factor in CWD and EHD, what wrath would they experience from these corporations? Would the idea of investigating this correlation be enough to bring threats of retaliation by the corporate world? Or are they under the same oppression as others have been when corporations are challenged? In order to save and protect Elk that are suffering from these diseases, IDFG must embark upon more studies into the correlation between spraying devastating chemicals and how it affects these animals. Pressure must be brought to bear on all agencies that use these practices until such time they study the cause and effect between pesticides and the health of wildlife. Contact your local IDFG Regional Office here and ask where comments can be made, or provide comments to any one of the IDFG Commissioners here. While this does not solve the problem pesticides cause in wildlife disease, it does give an indication that the corporate methodology is the same. Destroy something and blame it on climate change, then create the costly solution to fix it, while suppressing the ability to expose the truth. It cannot be denied the negative impact these chemicals have on both the land and in wildlife.
0 Comments
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. It is truly remarkable that Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) is paid to work for Idaho citizens, yet their work is primarily accomplished with the federal government such as the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), having such a heavy presence in Idaho with their connectivity agenda, is one of those NGOs in which IDFG has a partnership. In northern Idaho a project is currently being run as a joint venture by IDFG and Y2Y, called the Bees to Bears Climate Adaptation Project. It is a project to restore "250 acres of forested lowland habitat to improve landscape climate resiliency for 6 Species of Greatest Conservation Need on the Boundary-Smith Creek Wildlife Management Area." Jessie Grossman, Yellowstone to Yukon Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor Coordinator and Lacy Robinson, Y2Y, CPMC Project Coordinator serve on the project as well. Part of the project funding comes from the Wildlife Conservation Society. This project aligns with their joint Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor Collaborative as well, using Grizzlies as justification for "transboundary" conservation for connectivity which the IDFG employee mentions in the video. Citizen involvement is actually members of an IDFG group called the Master Naturalists. These partnerships with NGOs must end, IDFG is paid to represent Idaho citizens. Until this relationship is untangled and IDFG gets back to representing Idaho, their agenda for landscape conservation and connectivity will only continue.
Throughout this website there is validated documentation that most of the work on the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Hwy 20 project, so far, has been generated by entities other than local citizens. The true engagement of citizens really did not occur until December, 2016 when an open house was held during a time when the majority of residents were unable to attend. One of the initial schemes used by Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) to garner support for their overpass agenda was to "start creating quiet coalitions" (Pg 13). In the case of Island Park, the local Master Naturalists, Henry's Fork Foundation, and Henry's Fork Legacy Project were all used to create coalitions for wildlife overpasses, even having them involved in the various wildlife studies. By doing so, Y2Y uses these "coalitions" to project a false guise of collaboration and community support. Many individuals in these groups aren't even year round residents, Island Park is not their home. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Y2Y is partnering with state agencies such as Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG), and others, to exploit transportation projects for their objectives. In fact, their collusion extends all the way from Wyoming, through Idaho, into Canada. What is really fascinating is that Kim Trotter also makes claims of collaboration by "...getting out ahead of their (ITD) decision-making process to gain public support and influence their plans to include wildlife-friendly changes.” And just exactly where does Ms. Trotter get her statistic that supports the claim, "...one in four accidents are caused by wildlife..." on Hwy 20? Given the manipulative and secret exploits of Y2Y, it is astonishing Ms. Trotter claims, "...it’s essential to engage local voices...". Aside from the secretly created "coalitions", and private meetings with ITD, when did Ms. Trotter ever engage with local Island Park residents about influencing ITD to build overpasses? For anyone who does not support the Y2Y agenda for overpasses, they are accused of not caring about wildlife. This is intended to elicit feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt...and to refrain from voicing their objection. Citizens who oppose wildlife overpasses are more committed to Elk and other wildlife than conservation initiatives. They believe in protecting wildlife and the land from destruction and do not manipulate either for hidden objectives. Stay the course folks. Our government was created on the foundation of boundaries and local representation. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the government has enumerated powers and only functions "...from the consent of the governed". As state employees, IDFG is obligated to perform their duties according to the Idaho Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, which requires consent of the governed. By partnering only with initiatives they are violating this responsibility. Many of the individuals in these groups may own property which they visit a few months out of the year, but they are not residents of Island Park, nor are they Idahoans. IDFG has districts in each part of Idaho. District 6, the Upper Snake Region, covers Island Park. Every state employee working in this District has failed in their duty to inform Island Park residents and involve them in the ITD project from the beginning, instead working with Y2Y. It is not too late to reverse that and begin carrying out their duties from the consent of the governed.
One cannot escape the fact that NGOs, landscape initiatives, and other individuals are embedded with federal government agencies such as the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These groups also have powerful lobbying within both the state and federal government with large amounts of money backing their efforts. Their voice has succeeded in overpowering citizen's voices.
Over the last several years these same groups have been studying the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP). The SWAP was created by each state and although they vary in focus the primary objective is identifying species and habitat of greatest conservation need (SGCN), threats to them, and proposing conservation plans that will be monitored for effectiveness. SWAP is seen as a "living" document that can be updated and revised at regular intervals depending on how the plan is working. These groups are scrutinizing those objectives to intervene during revisions. In 2012, the Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, literally scoured 49 SWAP plans in the U.S., evaluating the language and content for keywords such as wildlife or habitat connectivity and linkage, and possible references towards incorporating these concepts into large-scale conservation plans. Corridors and movement were two other keywords that were counted. These groups see the SWAP as nothing more than an opportunity for a single framework, a national data set that evaluates and compares conservation planning efforts with no jurisdictional lines between or within states, only conformity with standards they want so desperately to define and control. Idaho would no longer be creating standards for Idaho, or standards that Idahoans want. Because some SWAP plans omitted this type of language it was seen as a hindrance to "...coordinated nationwide planning...". Eleven plans succeeded in meeting their criteria for what they consider best practices. This study was done for the purpose of identifying how SWAP plans could be revised to include more language and focus on the goals for connectivity and integration of what they consider are best practices, stating, "...increasing the emphasis on wildlife linkages, using common language, and incorporating these best practices can directly improve subsequent iterations of SWAP...". Since the Idaho SWAP is a "living" document with periodic monitoring for revisions these groups and lobbyists will be ready to make their case for the insertion of connectivity and linkage language into the plan. Since they are already tied into these agencies it shouldn't be very hard to accomplish. The Gary Tabor organization, Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), used the Gulf states SWAP to integrate their agenda, "...working to ensure that they play a foundational role in the GCPO’s Landscape Conservation Design (a.k.a. Conservation Blueprint). To that end the GCPO LCC has invited SWAP leaders to actively participate in the design process..." and "...will help ensure that the work the GCPO LCC does is value-added by integrating States’ plans across administrative boundaries...". The Great Lakes was another target. LCCN is literally drooling over SWAP plans for their pernicious agenda. The Greater Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), a federal program that coordinates these groups, also sees SWAP as "The first step towards integrating landscape efforts", along with the Defenders of Wildlife. This is how the game is played, study the prey, find an opening, then manipulate it for advantages in self-serving agendas. Idaho citizens will not have a say in this in spite of their right to representation. But Idaho Statute, Title 36 36-2405(5) states "The governor’s office of species conservation may petition the responsible public agencies to initiate rulemaking to facilitate the implementation of the approved management plan." and (7) "Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as granting the department of fish and game with new or additional authority." Since Governor Otter is part of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) that partners with the federal government for this conservation agenda, it is highly unlikely rulemaking will be requested. Citizen input for SWAP was not pursued aggressively as with scientists, NGOs, and other outside groups. A public hearing was held in Boise in January, 2016, a Wednesday and Thursday, when people are working, in the dead of winter. Idaho citizens should have first priority for input with these other groups taking a subordinate role. Per Idaho statute there is no authority to enforce SWAP and in spite of getting connectivity or linkage language into the SWAP there is no authority to force it on Idaho citizens. Individuals employed by NGOs and other initiatives work full time implementing their agenda while Idahoans work to earn a living, making it very difficult to find the time needed to oppose this agenda. But it must be done, now. Technocracy is "a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives." The right to representation is removed from citizens while these "experts", also known as technocrats, believe they possess impeccable scientific knowledge and are therefore masters of all solutions. Land issues are the perfect example to describe technocracy implementation. Data gathering is the essence of technocracy, examining everything at a microscopic level, so miniscule that the broader picture is obscured. Technocrats believe every species, plant, speck of dirt, drop of water, and human on land needs detailed examination for ultimate management. This is all based on the irrational fear that humans will overpopulate, necessitating the conservation of land for humans that don't even exist. But the truth is, land is rich with resources needed for life. Because technocrats believe land and its resources will be consumed by too many humans, then both must be conserved and controlled, now. That is the deception. Once the data is collected, it will be used for the goal of controlling and managing all resources, and humans. Created in 2005 by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was just for this purpose, bringing together a group of various technocrats for gathering data on species and habitat which might need conservation. Idaho was broken into fourteen "ecological sections", transcending all jurisdictional boundaries, with the next ten years spent on inventorying fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats, mapping their locations with geographic information system (GIS) layers for analysis. Scientific names were added to traditional names for wildlife and plants. A deer can no longer stand on its own as a beautiful creature, it has to be detailed as to type, what it eats, and where it lives. In ten years, with all this data stockpiled, what was a strategy now became a plan, the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). While this discussion focuses on Idaho, the federal government funded SWAP plans in every state, and the agenda is the same. The list of technocratic "experts" was expanded for this plan. From the CWCS, 205 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were identified, along with their habitat, ecology, and threat information. Not being detailed enough these species were then placed into "tiers" with ranking for conservation need. Going further, species were detailed in each ecological section. For good measure, all vertebrates and invertebrates in the state were inventoried. The more details the better. This resulted in a 411 page document that describes in excruciating detail the species description, conservation status, population trend, habitat, threats, needed conservation action, and other laborious data which will be used to justify the need for regulations that will remove the threat, justifying continued need for conservation. IDFG will need to implement a monitoring system for any changes in this data and that includes more GIS data layers. Needing further detail, the effectiveness of the monitoring will need to be monitored. Adaptive management is used by technocrats to incorporate new information for managing species and habitats. Using "conceptual models", technocrats try to predict desired outcomes for different approaches in conservation to determine if a desired outcome is achieved. In other words, experimenting around with nature. If any of these species or habitat are identified on private property, what will IDFG do? They will have to protect both by regulating your land. Will technocrats have that authority? Because of their power within government agencies technocrats are the likely ones that will make the regulatory decisions. The graphic tells the truth, how microscopic data will lead to regulations that will control how land is used, "influencing day to day compliance", requiring "permit approval", all for the purpose of controlling humans.
Technocracy is the non-violent weapon being used to wage war on America, its citizens, and our system of government. As more data is gathered this weapon will become more powerful in its governance over our lives. There will be no end to it unless citizens exercise their Constitutional right to representation over technocratic agendas. This is the first 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.
The Island Park area is targeted by an aggressive agenda that could potentially destroy what we have always known and loved. To fully understand this agenda it is important to understand its history. In 2001, the U. S. Congress appropriated federal funds to states for wildlife and fish conservation along with the responsibility to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. These strategies were intended to lay the foundation for "a coordinated vision and mechanism to enact conservation at a landscape level". Because this statement was so benign it was difficult for local residents or elected officials to understand its true meaning. In 2005, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) finished the required Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). The intent was to pass on "our ecological heritage to future generations", and engage others towards this endeavor. The purpose of this strategy was to identify species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and habitats for conservation, use legal instruments for conservation methods, and involve the public. "Ecosystem management" was also included. Seen as a "living document", open to ongoing revisions, the strategy also recognized "the need for increased and permanent federal conservation funding...". Participants in the CWCS included multiple government agencies and NGOs. The Wilderness Society (WS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Defenders of Wildlife, NatureServ (a partner of the program IUCN), and the Idaho Conservation League (ICL) which attaches itself to the Wilderness Society were all actively involved in the CWCS. Local Island Park working groups and elected representatives were not asked to participate as the strategy had intended. "Coordination" took place between federal and state government agencies, other states, land trusts, and even Canada with consultation on regional plans. But Idaho citizens were not included. Idaho was broken up into "eco sections", especially because of its "close association to TNC's ecoregional plans". This was just the beginning of blurring state, county, and private land jurisdictional boundaries. America's foundation is state sovereignty and local control through elected representation, which are are being erased. IDFG also declared, "All wildlife...within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho", to be "...preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed.” The CWCS states it "does not require any person or entity to implement conservation actions", or "dictate how conservation actions should be implemented", but only to "provide information and general direction...in developing conservation plans" with the development of those conservation plans as "discretionary". In the strategy, species were inventoried, especially the SGCN, habitats for protection were prioritized, and a goal to prevent the spread of invasive species. Although IDFG declared itself as "...not a major land management agency..." it did include partnerships with land management agencies (land trusts groups), plans to "acquire interest in property", assisting private land owners in conservation practices, and reducing impacts from land development. The CWCS laid the foundation to gather data. This data was needed to later justify the creation of large conservation landscapes, and create wildlife and habitat corridors for connectivity. Partnering with NGOs, and with the CWCS, IDFG supported the Heart of the Rockies, Crown of the Continent, Greater Yellowstone, Yellowstone to Yukon, and the High Divide agendas, which all work to place land and species under conservation status, create corridors, and promote connectivity. Island Park narrowly escaped designation as a national monument. But conservation easements, corridors, and connectivity achieve the same result, loss of private land ownership and land use by Idahoans. In Idaho, the goal of these groups are connecting landscape from Yellowstone, across public and private land, over the Continental Divide, and into the Centennials. IDFG is putting policies into place that will help them achieve these goals. A Monitoring Oversight Team, which included the TNC, was formed to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the strategy. Its primary purpose was to develop an overall strategy, identify needs, and set priorities. The CWCS was seen as a "living document", open to any changes necessary. A review of the CWCS in 2010 included revision of the SGCN conservation status, identifying any actions needing modification, and strategy revisions. Recommended actions included encouraging conservation plans with farmers/ranchers, adjusting grazing schedules, reducing residential development, restricting OHV use, allowing naturally occurring fires to burn, identifying linkage zones that provide connectivity between habitats for wide-ranging species along roads and highways, locating and designing highways and roads to reduce and mitigate impacts to wildlife and key habitats, providing corridors of intact, minimally disturbed habitat for wide–ranging species, reducing development on lakes, and designing travel corridors. Establishing corridors for eventual connectivity were the true goals in the CWCS. At the 10 year revision of the the CWCS in 2015, with all that data gathered, we now have the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). What was a strategy has now become the plan. SWAP will implement the creation of corridors beginning with the Hwy 20 Corridor plan, altering the IP landscape with artificial wildlife bridges and fences that wildlife will be forced to use in their migratory path. Elk were not identified in CWCS as a SGCN, but are now the species being used to justify the need for a corridor because of wildlife-vehicle-collisions (WVC). Highways and roads are the arteries that connect people to their land, the majority of which have been responsible in safely accommodating animals during migration across the roads. Attempts to environmentally engineer wildlife is very concerning. But the truth is, the creation of these corridors along highways and roads are stepping stones towards connectivity of large landscape areas. That was the real intent of the CWCS and now SWAP. As a neighbor to Yellowstone Park, Island Park has been, is, and will continue to be a targeted area for conservation by NGOs. They have a renewed and aggressive goal to convince private landowners to place their land into a conservation easements with partnering land trusts included in the CWCS. The agenda will not stop with wildlife. Part 2 will explain how biodiversity, ecosystems, and wetlands are used as justification to create corridors of connectivity. 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. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|