The Deceit Behind STEM

For several years there has been much emphasis for a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education foistedupon our youth.  The question arose, why so much emphasis in these educational areas, especially at the expense of other important, and needed, educational subjects?  Although any industry could be used as an example for why a STEM education is promoted, agriculture is a pretty easy case study that explains STEM.

The agricultural industry, including your local farmers, provides food production not only for local needs, but often for regional and perhaps in some cases, global needs.  Who doesn't need food?  As populations increased, food production became more sophisticated in meeting those increased food needs.  Advances in plant health, machinery, and harvesting have kept us well fed.  Over time, irrigation methods have also changed to water crops in a more efficient manner.  With STEM, a whole new ominous plan is now progressing for crop production.

According to some, the most efficient watering method for crops is drip irrigation.  A machine delivers water right on top of or at the plant root at scheduled times, supplying the required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizer needed for healthy growth while reducing water run off  and evaporation.  The larger the crop, the larger and more complicated the machine.

There are some drawbacks to drip irrigation including cost, as high as $10k for 1 acre, maintenance requirements, plus the potential for clogging, damage from environmental factors, and restricted water distribution.

According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average Idaho farm is 486 acres.  At $10k per acre, that means an average Idaho farmer would need to fork over 4 million dollars to install a drip irrigation system.  Or, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a drip irrigation system requiring pumps can be installed for as little as $1800 to $2500 an acre with additional costs to operate and manage it.  For the Idaho farmer the cost is now down from $875k to a little over $ 1 million.

Using drip irrigation as just one example, STEM education fields are necessary for its operation. 

No longer can we rely on a farmer, whose experience goes back multiple generations, who understands the land in ways that are not taught in a book, we must now have college educated science experts leading the way on plant management, even though those experts may have never worked a piece of land in their lives.  Agribusiness Companies, sometimes called Corporate Farming, require different types of  science "experts", or technocrats, determining nutrient and fertilizer amounts needed in drip irrigation for crop production as an example.  Thus, agriculture is just one type of science emphasized in STEM.  This could imply that current and past generations of farmers have never understood any of this science, even though they have been exemplary in feeding us for decades without a science degree.  Workers educated in computer science are also needed, who else will manage all those fancy machine programs?

Watering crops includes drip irrigation systems and other types of technology, such as sensors and other devices,  expanding the need for STEM educated workers in engineering and computer sciences.  Agricultural technology is for the sole purpose of conserving natural resources, especially water, and boosting production, thus feeding the global population which is anticipated to explode in the next few decades, at least according to some folks.  This cost of technology may be enough to end the survival of small farms.  Not only is the technology expensive, there is the long term cost of hiring those technocrats to operate it.
 
Mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers can be used in agriculture.  Different engineers are needed to design machinery, manage land and water use, conserve and store food, consider atmospheric science (no more Farmer's Almanac), manage soil, plant and harvest crops, manage waste, design experiments...these are just a few tasks requiring engineers in agriculture.

As for math, "...the increasing complexity of agricultural technology makes it mandatory that workers"... have the necessary math skills.  These math skills may include include land locations, conversion, weights and other types of measurements, yield estimates, calculation of growing days, costs, chemical or nutrient calculations, and certainly calculating water use in the most efficient method possible.  There is also more sophisticated agricultural economics, know as agronomics, which focuses on the increase in food production and distribution.  How did farmers accomplish the same without that math degree?

In agriculture, the farmer is being forced to move to scientific production through the use of advanced science and technology, sophisticated engineering, and calculated methods on food production, all requiring more workers educated in STEM fields.  All fields are needed to just manage a drip irrigation system which might be cost prohibitive for the farmer.

According to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), farming is now called "sustainable" agriculture for raising farm income, promoting environmentalism, increasing the quality of life, and increasing food production.  It is also their desire to "improve the quality of surface water and groundwater resources".  "Sustainable agriculture" actually came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO).  Promoting and implementing UN goals are NGO obligations, in this case sustainable development (SD), which is also known as Agenda 21.

Agenda 21, Chapter 14, is devoted to agriculture.  The goal is transforming agricultural practices to reduce waste and conserve resources.  As UN organizational partners, the United Nations Environmental Program and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), focus on an "Activity Cluster" by “Creating the enabling conditions for uptake of sustainable production practices at the national level and through the building of partnerships”.  The Agri-Food Task Force was created in 2010 with specific goals to overtake agricultural practices by 2022, of course with participation by our federal government.  As part of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the US Department of Agriculture has been implementing Agenda 21 since 1993, and is now implementing the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Returning to irrigation, the goal is to squeeze out and utilize every drop of water in a sustainable manner and scientifically manage plant growth.  Through its partnership with UNEP to implement Agenda 2030 SDG, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate regulatory actions, forcing farmers out of business.  Regulations such as requiring clean water prior to application on crops, pest and dust management, even regulating livestock, all for sustainable agriculture in line with the UN.  Scientists support this as well by creating technology such as water recovery machines which add nutrients back into used water, requiring STEM educated workers.  Idaho might be a particular target for requirements to change to other technologies because of its agricultural water use.  The UN promotes drip irrigation, their business partner, Yamaha, even creating the technology for it.

With the expense for technology, ballooning requirement for scientific expertise, regulations, and brainwashing on the UN sustainable agriculture concept, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.  Sustainable agriculture and food securityare UN fallacies based on overpopulation and man-made climate change myths. The true goal is corporatism, forcing the death of farming for agri-corporations which have the finances to move in and take over our food production and supply.   Monsanto, Noble, Mosaic, Nestle, DuPont, and General Mills  are just a few agricultural corporations that join hands with the UN, often merging to advance their monopolies and push the local farmer out.  These monopolies also lead to significant power, influence, and control over our food supply.  Corporations have the financial resources to move food production towards the STEM principles and meet regulatory demands, along with bank investments in water, such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (14)(17), JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.  The World Bank thinks investment in water is great.

The UN uses climate change as justification for SD, and technocracy, the control of governments and society by science experts, to implement it.  "Best practices and evidence based" are terms that insinuate only science holds the answers.  As farms are destroyed by the inability to afford regulatory and technological demands imposed by our government in partnershipwith the UN, UN business partners are ready to take over, implementing SD practices for the UN.  The UN is the primary forcebehind a STEM education to meet those corporate workforce needs, even providing resources for STEM and using it for socialchange.  It is through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) partnership with the UN that SD was integrated into education, which now includes STEM.  The United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) even has learning objectives for teaching SDGs.  As stated in this video, the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is in support of "...aligning education and training with industry needs...".  This is exactly the purpose of STEM which is part of the UN objectives for corporatism.  Pick your industry, the same STEM rubbish is being integrated into those as well.

The trajectory has been the UN, in partnership with our government and corporations, leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers, with our food supply eventually being fully controlled by corporations, most of whom partner with the UN.  Sound crazy?  Well, others have written about it.  There is also the question of whether an actual shortage of engineers and scientists exist.  Starting on page 26 of this 2017 Congressional Research Service report,  it summarizes why a true shortage may not exist.  With the UN driving the agenda these facts are hidden.  Meanwhile, Idaho children are being surrendered to this deceit, denied the right to an education that provides truth and balance in all subjects for a strong foundation, and robs them of self determination.

It would behoove the Idaho Legislature, Board of Education, and State Board of Education to give serious thought to really understanding the deceitful background behind STEM, and the direction they are taking Idaho children.  The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are loaded with SD ideology.  References to climate change in the NGSS have been removed by the Idaho House, it is now up to the Senate to support the House in that decision.  Incorporating climate change back into the standards is just advancing UN ideology and objectives.  In fact, it would be impressive if our legislature would eliminate NGSS along with Common Core altogether, have Idahoans create its own standards and curriculum, and focus on teaching students the truth while giving them the freedom to make decisions about their future, rather than it being determined for them.

The Coup d'état Over Idaho Land

There has been, and what is now a very aggressive agenda, to take and control Idaho land.  Idahoans may not realize the magnitude of individuals and organizations involved so this is an overview of some, but not all, to provide an understanding of the problem, and its depth.  These organizations and individuals work in harmony with each other and some individuals traverse between groups providing direction on conservation issues.  Currently, land in between protected areas is highly targeted for conservation.  This can only be described as a coup d'état.

                                                                       Western Governor's Association (WGA)
The WGA created  Resolution 07-01 in 2007, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West, "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west.".  The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) was created using GIS tools, then transferred to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).  Here is the result of their work, the Chat map. 
Goal:  Data Collection, creation of corridors, and conservation.

                                                                       Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
                                                                         Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
WAFWA represents "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", including Canada.  WAFWA is an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), however, IDFG is listed as a AFWA member with 13 employees on various committees. IDFG Director, Virgil Moore, was named AFWA President this year.  AFWA, based in Washington D.C., "represents state agencies" on capital hill while its members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI). 
Goal: Conservation of species, enacting federal legislation to enforce conservation.

                                                                                 Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP)
The BRP, created in 2014 by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups, and state fish and wildlife agencies."  The BRP includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and is a conglomerate of lobbyists succeeding in in  introducing legislation, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016 which requests 1.3 billion dollars for conservation.  One goal is creating policy options to fund "conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species" via state SWAP plans and restructuring state fish and wildlife agencies.  (BRP was renamed "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife"-AAFW).
Goal: Raise funds through corporations to support conservation efforts in states and through federal legislation, possibly influence how fish & wildlife agencies are structured, rather than keeping it as a state decision.

                                                                    Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) 
Created by the Department of Interior and administered by USFWS, these are partnerships between NGOs, federal and state government agencies, universities, and conservation initiatives to collect data on species, habitat, and land which will then be evaluated for conservationthrough creation of corridors for connectivity, and other measures.
Goal:  Identifying species and habitat for corridors which can be used to place large tracts of land into conservation for connectivity to other protected areas, convincing private land owners to place their land into conservation easements, buying land through NGOs and the federal government, erasing jurisdictional boundaries between counties, states, and countries, and creating a regional environmental governance.

                                                                 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP)
The LILP, UN NGO, integrates theory and practice for public policy decisions on land use.  They were responsible for the idea to bring all conservationists together in one group, "a collective voice for advancing the theory and practice of large landscape conservation", called the Network for Large Landscape Conservation, then rebranded as the Network for Landscape Conservation.  They also brought in LCCs, USFS, USGS, BLM and other federal agencies to enhance funding through grants.  The LILP believes in regionalism, that jurisdictional boundaries, and your representation through elected officials, are irrelevant.  LILP focuses on building a large landscape community of conservation practice.  Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is another organization that tries to influence the use of private property and whom "policy makers" listen to, rather than you.
Goal: Increase efforts to put all land into conservation for protection and connectivity, research land policy programs for public officials and others about the use of land, land regulation, and property rights, having a "more active role in the conversations that shape public policy decisions.", which also involves land trusts.

                                                             Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC)
The NLC includes individuals working across geographies, regardless of political boundaries, to conserve connected, ecological systems by partnering with multiple organizations and the federal government.
Goal: Conserving land for connectivity.

                                                 Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy (CNREP)
CNREP is "known for their work in public lands policy, water law and policy, land-use planning, and cross-boundary resource management.", including large landscape conservation strategic frameworks for policy and action.
Goal: Influence public policy on land issues.

                                                                         Conservation Science Partners (CSP)
Research scientists in applied conservation science, collecting and developing new data for conservation practitioners, all to support conservationgoals.  Their partners include the federal government and several other sources cited in this article.
Goal:  Producing science that supports all forms of conservation and organization objectives.

                                                                   Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
CBI conducts conservation research and develops conservation tools, such as Data Basin, for collecting data that assists conservation agendas, and regional planning assessments to support conservation projects globally.  Data collection includes protected areas, conservation easements, and high conservation value areas.  Partners include foundations, the federal government, corporations, and universities.  The DOI funded CBI to "assist in the strategic development and expansion of scientific information, analysis and support tools to benefit the LCC network and facilitate landscape conservation design."  This tool is interoperable between LCCs.  Core Data Basin information is free and also serves the HORI which is a land trust partnership for placement of private land into conservation.
Goal: Create tools for conservation, provide a data center where all conservation data can be stored and accessible to conservation groups and individuals for promotion of conservation.

                                      HD, HOR, Y2Y, GYC, COC, FW, TNC, WS, HFLP, WCS, DOW, NWF  
All of these "initiatives" and NGOs, many being UN NGOs, have common goals, putting as much private land as possible into conservation easements, buying private land to retain or sell to the government as a conservation easement, declaring areas needing protection for species or habitats, identifying corridors between protected land for eventual linkage and connectivity, engaging as many private land owners as possible to use conservation practices on their land, indoctrinating the young on believing their conservation is the only answer, creating conservation by design on land, expanding boundaries of already existing protected land such as national parks, and engaging county commissioners to integrate restrictive land use regulations into comprehensive plans.  TNC is even bringing in corporations to fund their goals, starting with UN business partner J.P. Morgan.  There are multiple overlaps of individuals between these groups with some players being prominent leaders such as Gary Tabor, Rob Ament, Michael Whitfield, Joel Berger, and Matthew McKinney.
Goal: Put all land into some form of conservation status with restrictive regulations on how land is used, expand protected land boundaries so wildlife has room to roam, procure as much land as possible.

                                                                      USFWS, USFS, BLM, NPS, NRCS, USDA 
The federal government partners with initiatives, organizations, and NGOs to accomplish conservation goals and regionalism.  Each agency has a variety of programs for conservation.  It is your tax dollar being used to fund these conservation groups.  Eventually, all recreation and how you recreate will be "managed" for conservation and protection, as H.R. 3400, Sec. 305 describes.
Goal: Use taxpayer dollars to assist groups to achieve their goals of conservation across county, state, and country jurisdictional boundaries while failing to represent Americans as public servants through elected officials, or engage them with transparency.

                                                              Western Transportation Institute (WTI)
WTI conducts research on roads to assist with identifying core habitats, dispersal corridors, restoring connectivity, and highway mitigation methods, under the guise of road ecology.
Goal: Determine how your roads should be built and managed simultaneously with conservation groups.

                                                                                    Foundations
Aside from these groups taking your tax dollar to support their objectives, there are also wealthy foundations that contribute to the effort.  Wilburforce, Brainerd, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Turner (UN partner) are just a few foundations that fork over money for conservation groups.
Goal: Financially assist NGOs and initiatives in conservation objectives.

What is interesting about these groups is there are legal requirements not being followed.  This Legal Framework For Cooperative Conservation document outlines some legal requirements.  There are specific requirements for public involvement but these groups create their own support groups with the same ideology, then proclaim them as public involvement.  Public engagement, those individuals who live in a particular area, are never involved while engagement with state and federal agencies are hidden as well.  Specific requirements for open and transparent disclosure are also required, but this rarely happens.  As stated in the document, "These resources belong to the public", not the conservation groups.  But that is what they believe, they own the land, it is theirs to manipulate, and hide what they are doing.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended "to ensure that agency officials make policy decisions in open, deliberative processes rather than behind closed doors with undue influence by select stakeholders".  However, this is exactly what has been happening, activity and decisions are being made with select groups and hidden from the public.  In order to delegate authority to new entities, "Congress must specify the general policies under which the group operates and the restrictions limiting the group’s authority."  LCCs, initiatives, and NGOs operate without any congressional policy, create their own policies while projecting an image of authority, are self directed with no oversight, while the public is not informed about the depth of involvement by so many groups, their intention to collect and share data for decisions on how we will live or use our land, or that the federal government is funding it with our tax dollar.  Had we been informed would we agree to this egregious agenda?  Would there be agreement to the end goal of placing the majority of Idaho into conservation with restricted use?

Our Constitution is based on separation of powers.  Therefore, federal "agencies may not “subdelegate” this authority to outside parties."  But the federal and state agencies are subdelegating decisions to these conservation groups, allowing them to integrate their objectives into governmental decisions, and influencing our elected officials.  Even worse, now there is a growing movement towards private sector management of our public land, which Secretary Zinke supports and is implementing with a recreation advisory committee.  Is this a sub-delegation of our public land to outside interests?  Will there be corporate influence over how the land is used which overrides the public whose tax dollars pay for public land use?

There is also the audacity of the USFS being allowed to subjugate private land to public use for access to public land.  The Fifth amendment clearly states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Matthew McKinney (CNREP), believes in regionalism, and has his own ideas about land, co-authoring an article, "The Emerging Role of Network Governance in Large Landscape Conservation".  He and his coauthor claim, "No single entity has the authority to address these types of cross-boundary issues, resulting in gaps in governance and a corresponding need to create formal and informal ways work more effectively across administrative boundaries, land ownerships, and political jurisdictions."  Network governance is intended to "supplement", not replace other forms of governance.  Supplement is a broad term but most likely it is meant to be an insertion of his and other groups ideology for conservation and regionalism.  By his own admission, "civic entrepreneurs from the public and private sectors, NGOs, and universities have catalyzed a variety of innovative governance arrangements".  Has he ever heard of the Constitution, the foundation of which cannot be exchanged for other "governance arrangements?   Mr. McKinney has written about  "Global Guidance on Transboundary Conservation" for the IUCN and how to initiate it. 

As a Global Transboundary Conservation Network member, and World Commission on Protected Areas ( WCPA) member, Mr. McKinney has deep ties with the UN, especially regarding protected areas, bringing UN ideology into decisions regarding Idaho through his many connections.  All of his activities are moving towards the UN Environmental Governance strategy, which the University of Montana might teach in their model UN program where Mr. McKinney works.

This CSP graphic gives a visual picture of just a few who are involved in controlling our land use.

The majority of these groups and individuals are scientists, technocrats, implementing their agenda via technocracy, a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology, or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.  Most associate with the UN and are actively implementing Agenda 2030 SD target Goals 15 and 17.17.

Federal and state employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through laws.  Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us.  But, the truth is, representation has been entrusted to other states, countries, corporations, organizations, and NGOs.  Unless we come together, organize direct opposition to them, land use for "future generations" will be living with these individuals and groups deciding how land is used.  We cannot let them continue taking control of Idaho land.

Native Tribes - Pawns of Agenda 21
by
Karen Schumacher

  Preface
There are few subjects and issues that match the level of UN and federal government corruption and fraud than the exploitation of Tribes and attacks on private property.

                                                                           Understanding Tribal History
                                                                                                &
                                                                           Federal Government Relations

It is well known that the United Nations (UN) uses partnerships with professional organizations, businesses, governments, and non-profit groups to advance their agenda and ideology.

But the UN is using another group, Tribes.  Through the UN and federal government cartel for Sustainable Development (SD), aka Agenda 21 implementation, Tribes are being used to confiscate more resources, land, and private property.  Tribal issues regarding land and water in the U.S. are extremely complex, involving multiple case decisions, Acts, settlements, and federal laws.  The U.S. has had a troubled relationship with Native American Tribes from the beginning with malfeasance, and all that it implies, by the federal government, but never at the level that exists today.  A review of that history is necessary to understand the current Tribal disputes regarding land and water, and how the federal government is using that history against Americans for UN agenda gains.  Following are the more significant past laws that affect current decisions regarding Tribal land.

In 1452, forty years prior to Columbus landing on this new land, "...the Dum Diversas Bull, a papal bull (aka an edict), was issued by Pope Nicholas V, granting the blessing to "capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property."  In 1493, one year after Columbus discovered this new land, Pope Alexander VI’s papal bull issued the Inter Caetera which granted the same to Spain.  These declarations came to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery.  The Doctrine's foundation was the ability to take land, private property, and rights from non-Christian inhabitants in newly discovered land.  The UN uses these 522 year old papal bulls as a basis for the initial wrongful violation of indigenous rights across the world.  The Doctrine of Discovery has been cited in Supreme Court cases regarding Tribal rights since that time.

There have been numerous treaties and laws regarding Tribal rights over the years, including ones that involved water and land, but to this day Tribal status decisions have been primarily based on the Doctrine of Discovery.

The 1887 Dawes Act placed Tribes and individual Native Americans on allotted land, opened up non-allotted land to non-native settlement, with surplus land usurped by the government; The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 reversed the Dawes Act, restored surplus land to Tribes, and authorized the government to acquire land, water and surface rights for Indians, and extended the placement of land into federal government trust; the 1950's Termination policies terminated some Tribes, removed land from trust status, extended state jurisdiction over land, and initiated relocation programs; and the 2000 Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments gave the government the ability to consolidate fragmented Tribal land resulting from the previous decisions.

Over the years there have been federal laws passed, and repealed, to reverse past injustices and litigation challenging the same.  It was during the 60's when Indian activists took a role in bringing Native American rights to the forefront.  As a result, laws began to focus more on Tribal self-determination and self-governance, rather than being a "domestic dependent nation" or a "ward to his guardian" (#18).  Decisions affecting Tribes would now be made by the Tribes rather than the federal government, although the government still holds authority over the tribes and the land on which they reside.

The federal government holds reservation and other land "in trust" for the tribes, meaning tribes technically do not own title to their lands.  The U.S. then administers and manages the land and resources for the fiduciary advantage of the tribe.  Recognized as a "sovereign nation or state", tribes can form tribal governments; determine tribal membership; regulate individual property; levy and collect taxes; maintain law and order;exclude non-members from tribal territory; regulate domestic relations; and regulate commerce and trade.  The federal government retains theultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights while Congress creates regulations that govern the territorybelonging to the United States. As legal title-holder to most Indian lands, the U.S. has the power to dispose of and manage those lands, and derive income from them.  Due to federal fiduciary mismanagement and the Cobell lawsuit, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDA) alone was awarded 18 million dollars of which 4.1 million will be used to buy back land with the Department of Interior (DOI) assisting.  This establishes more land in trust to the federal government.

The CDA people once inhabited 3,500,000 acres in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.  In 1867, President Johnson established a reservation for the tribe at the request of the territorial governor, but it was not accepted by the tribe because the main waterways were not included.  After the Tribe ceded almost 2.4 million acres to the government in 1873, negotiations established 598,000 acres for a reservation that included the St. Jo and Coeur d'Alene rivers and a portion of Lake Coeur d'Alene.  The remaining land was lost to the allotment process.  This agreement was no approved by Congress at the time.  In 1889 the tribe ceded the northern third of the reservation back to the federal government, including part of Lake Coeur d'Alene.  When Idaho became a state in 1890 Congress included a section disclaiming the state's rights to lands owned by tribes in the state constitution, then ratifying the earlier tribal agreements in 1891.  In the 2001 Supreme Court case, Idaho v United States, it was determined that the U.S. held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene, holding that land in trust for the CDA Tribe.

In 1909, after 114 allotments were completed, the remaining CDA reservation land was opened to homesteaders.  By 1933, 40 per cent of the allotted land was sold.  The federal government now uses land lost to allotment as a method to return land back to Tribes, still holding it "in trust" for the tribes.  Other federal fiduciary responsibilities include protecting tribal treaty rights, assets, resources, and carrying out federal law mandates.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these laws to define Tribal land, land in trust, and allotment lands.  In the EPA definition of a Federal Indian reservation, the EPA interprets the law in light of Supreme Court case law, that a reservation includes trust lands set apart for a tribe's use even though not formally designated as a reservation.  Here is their website explaining all their definitions on Indian country.

The EPA uses these different definitions for Indian country depending on each case.  Using an Indian country definition from 1948 under 18 U.S. Code 1151, (c) states: includes all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.  This is based on the the 1887 Dawes Act which allotted land to Indians in exchange for land paid for by the government to keep in trust for the tribe.  Any surplus lands were taken out of Tribal ownership. 

In the Indian Energy Resource Program, the term Tribal Land "...means any land or interests in land owned by a tribe or tribes, title to which is held in trust by the United States...".  Indian Land refers to any land located within or not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, the title to which is held in trust by the U.S. for the benefit of an Indian Tribe.

The Indian Land Tenure Foundation is devoted to restoring these lands to the Tribes.  With federal termination policies Tribal land was removed from trust status and Tribal affiliation.  Since that time Tribes have fought to regain that land in addition to having land outside of reservations declared Sacred Sites for their protection and use.  Money derived from casino earnings, federal grants and tax dollars, tax free trusts, court settlements, and resource use are used by Tribes to buy land back. 

Federally recognized Tribes can be allowed "same treatment as a state (TAS)" status.  The EPA was allowed provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA) to give Tribes with TAS status authority to implement federal environmental law, making them eligible for federal funding.  Federally recognized tribes in Idaho include the Coeur D’Alene Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe.  The CDA Tribe obtained TAS status in 2005. These tribes also have lobbyists in Idaho.

Although there are multiple other court decisions and laws relating to tribal lands and rights, the essence is that because the federal government has full land and water authority over tribes through trusts, they have developed mechanisms for the tribes to not only recover previously held land but also enforce federal law.  This is significant when it comes to both land and water rights.  Engaging tribes in environmental regulations, and resource control, gives the government further power to implement Agenda 21.   

Part 2 will explore how Tribal land and water rights are being decided by the federal government.     

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Native Tribes - Pawns of Agenda 21 - Part 2

                                                                                                 Tribal Water Rights

There have been long standing disputes regarding Tribal water rights with most court decisions upholding Tribal rights.  Some of those cases are outlined in this article.  However, there are a few court decisions that have determined the principle of Tribal water rights. 

The 1908 Supreme Court decision, Winters v United States, was the most significant case regarding Tribal water rights.  The court determined that designated reservation lands included reserved water rights.  Expanding on that case in 1963, the court held that water rights included all federal reservations of land, such as national parks and forests.  This decision took over 87% of Idaho water. 

The 1983 case, United States v. Adair, gave senior water rights to Tribes "...with a priority date of time immemorial" (148) meaning from the time the reservation was established into the future.  Arizona v. California is a set of different cases but the 1983 case increased water allotment to reservations.  In the 1985 Montana case, Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the court determined that appropriators outside of reservation boundaries could not deplete stream waters where non-consumptive (fishing/hunting) rights apply.

Based on the Winters and Arizona cases, Indian water rights are commonly held to principles known as the Winters Doctrine.  These rights include Congress holding the right to reserve water for federal lands, including Indian reservations; reservations have the right to water sourceswithin or bordering the reservation; reservation water rights are reserved as of the date of the reservation's creation; and the amount of waterreserved for Indian use is the amount necessary to irrigate all of the practically irrigable land on the reservation with state laws being secondaryto federally reserved water rights.  These rights apply to both surface and groundwater, and to other federal reserved land.  To determine the amount of water needed for Tribal land a water quantification, or practicably irrigable acreage (PIA), was created.

Because of years of litigation and costs associated with these disputes, water rights are now negotiated between the Tribe, organizations, and the state and federal government for a settlement agreement, with specific criteria and procedures set forth in 1990, thanks to GHWB.  If federal funding is involved it then goes through Congress for approval. 

What started out as an attempt to quantify water rights for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead reservation, ultimately turned into the most egregious federal take over of water and elimination of water rights for Montana citizens.  Instead of quantifying water allotment to the Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Federal Reserved Water Compact (CSKT) was created through negotiationsbetween the federal government, Tribes, and the State.  This compact puts all water rights in 11 counties under Tribal control.  Yes, ALL water rights including municipal and private well water.  In doing so, the federal government now holds those rights in trust.  In this case the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the 1948 Indian country definition (c) "all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished...".

The Aamodt settlement is another classic example of how the federal government uses previous treaties to give land back to Tribes and gain control over water.  This settlement calls for diverting water to four New Mexico Tribes, creating a regional water system which will take water away from New Mexico citizens and who will then be forced to pay for it.  As part of the 2010 Claims Resolution Act Pub. L. No. 111-291 this settlement was put into law along with other settlements.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), serving Idaho Tribes in the northwest region, has a department that specifically assists with tribal water issues, including funds for negotiations and litigation, your tax dollar being used against you to support Tribes in water disputes.  The Department of the Interior (DOI) has an Indian Water Rights Office for the same as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. The DOI also provides personnel, technical, and financial assistance to tribes on water rights issues. 

Through EPA regulation 131.8(a)(3), the CDA Tribe was authorized to administer and determine water quality standards (WQS) within the reservation boundary.  However, any water from non-members flowing into reservation boundaries can be held to any WQS the tribe sets, which a tribe can make more stringent. 

Prior to officially granting TAS status to the CDA Tribe, concerns about Tribal authority over waters and non-members were answered by the EPA.  The EPA cited the reservation boundaries in the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. at 1027 as the basis by which current water could be governed by the Tribe.  The Act determined that land not ceded by the CDA Tribe but held by the U.S. would now officially be ceded by the Tribe, relinquishing all right and title.  The government compensated the Tribe $150,000 along with other provisions with the DOI managing those funds for the Tribe.  Not cited by the EPA, Article 2, page 1030, outlines the ceded land description for which they were paid $500,000.  The EPA also referenced Act of August 15, 1894, 28 Stat. at 322.  The CDA Tribe was paid $15,000 in 1894 for an additional tract of land on the northern boundary of the reservation.  Article I under Agreement in President Grant's 1894 executive order explains the CDA Tribe boundaries.  So the EPA is using land decisions from 124 years ago and older to justify extension of Tribal water rights, along with the 1983 "time immemorial"  during current settlement negotiations.

The question as to whether or not non-ceded land should be given back to Tribes under the same 1894 Act was considered, then refused, in the 2011 Yankton Sioux Tribe vs South Dakota Supreme Court case.  These same concerns about Tribal extension over non-members arise over air quality.  Under the CAA, the EPA included previously negotiated Wind River land for the Tribe to regulate air quality in Wyoming.  The Wyoming Supreme Court determined in 2008 that Congress "intended to diminish" reservation land in 1905.  Land ceded by Tribes in 1905 became the EPA's justification under the CAA to extend Tribal boundaries which took the town of Riverton.  The DOI Solicitor took part in this malfeasance by supporting the extension of reservation boundaries in 2011 using selective decisions and laws to substantiate the final decision for the Tribe.  Why not, DOI uses your tax dollar to support Tribes.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also supported this action.  And why not, DOJestablished the Office of Tribal Justice to "...coordinate policy towards Indian Tribes..." in 1995, partnering with other bureaus and offices in DOJ to achieve the same.

Recognizing this boundary issue as a potential barrier to their agenda, in August, 2015 the EPA brought forth a Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provision which would give Tribes the ability to extend reservation boundaries as done in the CAA.  The EPA is also working on streamlining the process to obtain TAS status which would in turn hasten EPA policy enforcement.

Bottom line is that the federal government is exploiting Tribes for the purpose of taking land, water, and other rights away from American citizens and putting those resources directly into their hands through the Tribal trust arrangement.  America citizens who are not members of the Tribe lose all rights to a representative government as they then fall under Tribal jurisdiction and government.  From the 6 to 9 minute mark in this video, Elaine Willman explains how the federal government is using Tribes to take control of land. 

In this New American article, Exploiting Indians, the Wind River Reservation issue is explained which is really one methodology the federal government uses to take land and water away from American citizens.  From these cases to what has been happening across the U.S. for years, it is clear the EPA as well as other federal agencies are in bed with Tribes to usurp land and water rights.  The Tribal advantage is amassing millions in federal funds and for the federal government increased ownership and control of resources.  With those funds the Tribes are then able to buymore land, hire lobbyists, and fund politicians to further advance their power. 

So what does any of this have to do with the UN?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

  United Nations - Agenda 21

Agenda 21, Chapter 26 is titled "Recognizing And Strengthening The Role Of Indigenous People And Their Communities".  That was in 1992.  It is stunning how these goals have been implemented and advanced since that time.  The United Nations (UN) has defined indigenous people as self-identified, pre-colonial and pre-settler, with a strong link to resources, distinct political systems, language, and beliefs, and being a non-dominant group.

Goals of Chapter 26 include strengthening policies to empower indigenous people; creating national dispute-resolution arrangements for land settlement and resource-management; strengthening indigenous peoples participation in formulation of policies and programmes relating to resource management and initiation of proposals for such policies and programmes; enhancing sustainable development (SD); protecting cultural property; creating inter-governmental cooperation; and providing technical and financial assistance to them.  As seen in Part 2, some of these goals have been accomplished by the federal government.

The UN worked on Indigenous issues prior to Agenda 21.  In 1982 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations began studying fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to develop international standards for indigenous peoples rights.

Although never ratified by the U.S., in 1989, the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) law, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), called for countries to recognize indigenous people's right to control their institution, life, economic development, and right to maintain their identity, languages and religions.  Article 14 specifically addresses land issues, requiring states to safeguard indigenous people's right to land "...not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access...", and procedures to resolve land claims.  The Convention also calls for indigenous recognition in other areas, all of which the U.S. has achieved through federal actions.

The first action taken to accomplish Chapter 26 goals was in 1993 by WJC Executive Order (EO) 12852, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, implementing Agenda 21.  The council was comprised of federal agencies which included the Department of Interior (DOI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and UN non-governmental organizations (NGO).  The DOI manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S.Geological Survey (USGS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and National Park Service (NPS), all of which promote indigenous rights, while the DOI continued managing the fiduciary responsibilities.

In 1995 the Department of Justice (DOJ) established a policy to empower Tribes and government relations, and protect Tribal culture, establishing an Office on Tribal Justice in 2014.  The 1996 EO 13007 by WJC declared Indian access to and protection of sacred sites on federal land.  EO 12852 was expanded in 2000 with WJC EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, giving Tribes a greater voice in federal policies by placing an Indian office in each federal agency.  BHO reinforced EO 13175 in 2009 with a memorandum instructing all federal agencies to submit plans to implement EO 13175.  In 2011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), to implement sustainable development goals, now removed.  (Update: It is replaced with the new 2016 MOU to implement Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals)  Sustainable Development goals are being achieved by the EPA.  Other federal agencies promoting the same can be found here.

Those are some accomplishments for Agenda 21.  But the UN expanded Chapter 26 goals.

In 2007 the UN revealed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP).  The essence of this declaration is the recognition of indigenous collective rights for culture, language, identity, employment, health, education, and prohibiting discrimination.  There are 46 articles in this document outlining indigenous rights.  Some of those rights are directly related to U.S. history such as rights to self-determination and self government; not being subjected to forced assimilation or cultural destruction or forcibly removed from their lands or territories; not be dispossessed of their land, territories or resources; practice cultural traditions; control educational systems in their own culture and language; administer programmes through their own institutions; and right to traditional medicines.  Most of these have already been enacted in U.S. law.

More terrifying however are the articles on indigenous rights to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired; compensation for lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent; and that compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

Although never officially recognized or adopted by Congress, through BHO, this declaration is "supported" and being implemented.  In 2007 the DOI appointed an individual as Counsel to Assistance Secretary-Indian Affairs who had actually worked in partnership with the UN on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The DOI, in 2010, called for a review of DRIP and subsequently, after a "review" by federal agencies, BHO declared U.S. support in 2010 while outlining his accomplishments in meeting some of the declaration's goals.  The Department of State also supported this BHO declaration to "address the consequences of history".  A representative from Interior Indian Affairs proudly announced BHO's decision to support DRIP at the UN in 2011.  There was no Congressional approval for this.

Not satisfied with just governments implementing their agenda, in 2011 the UN created the United Nations-Indigenous People's Partnership (UNIPP), a full partnership with indigenous groups to advance the agenda and carry out DRIP mandates.  This includes partnerships between UN organizations, indigenous groups, and other UN bodies such as non-governmental organizations (NGO). In 2012 UNEP developed a guidance policy for member states to use in policy development and bring indigenous people into closer partnership with the UN.  

In 2013, EO 13647 established the White House Council on Native American Affairs that includes inter-governmental agency coordination on Indian affairs.  Not surprisingly, the first meeting didn't include any Tribal leaders.  Following that in December 2014, BHO announced to Tribal leaders his intent to restore tribal homelands and resolve water right disputes, both commitments to Agenda 21 and DRIP.

The DOI strategic plan 2014-2018 actively implements DRIP.  In this plan the DOI outlines commitments to strengthen tribal nations; restore tribal lands; establish strong relationships with tribes; fulfill commitments for water rights; develop and increase energy resources; preserve and enhance cultural interests and sacred sites; convert 500,000 acres from fee to trust; enhance water availability to tribes; finalize and implement water rights settlements; provide technical assistance and ecosystem restoration; secure water supplies; protect tribal water rights; improve infrastructure; honor and protect cultural resources; and protect treaty rights.  This will all be accomplished through DOI partnerships with other federal agencies, that "inter-government" collaboration.  If anyone wants to know the direction American citizens are headed with land and water rights, this plan tells you.  An outline of the plan was presented to the Indian Affairs committee in 2011 and as a result there has been legislation introduced and passed for implementation. 

                                                                                  RESTORING LAND

In 2014 Michael Crapo (R-ID) was responsible for the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act which restores previous land held by the the Fort Hall Reservation and compensation for land lost in the exchange.

Jon Tester (D-MT) has taken it upon himself to sponsor laws that would restore water and land to Tribes in four states.  Tester also introduced S.732 which would give the DOI the ability to take land back into trust even though a Tribe is not federally recognized, overturning a Supreme Court decision.  Six bills were passed in November, 2015, four of which put land into trust on behalf of Tribes. 

Having made previous attempts to extend Tribal land, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation to declare Nevada land should be held in trust for Tribes as reservation land, including Duck Valley.  Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) introduced a bill that would allow the DOI to take into trust additional lands for the Siletz Tribe from the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation.  Fortunately going nowhere, the America Indian Empowerment Act 2015 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) would fulfill DRIP by granting fee land back to tribes.

Land at Fort Wingate in New Mexico, an abandoned military installment, was given back to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation in 2014, another example of how the federal government places land "in trust" for Tribes, along with all the resources.
 
The DOI implemented the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPR) in 1995 granting Tribal rights to human remains and sacred objects.  In 2015 the DOI pulled together other crony federal agencies for an MOU to protect Tribal sacred sites, not only on federal land but private land as well.  The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) will help with this as well, along with other commitments.

The federal government is also spending 1.9 Billion to buy land back for placement into trust for Tribes per DOI Secretarial Order 3325.  Here is the 2015 status report.  But the truth is, that land is going into federal hands who are probably drooling at the opportunity to promote another UN goal, economic development.  Tribes working with the government to implement SD practices as seen in this 2014 CDA Reservation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, loaded with UN ideology.  The government is lying to Tribes when it says this scam will restore tribal lands.  It is putting land into government hands for future manipulation towards UN goals.  It couldn't be more well stated in this Standing Rock Sioux Tribe agreement, "Consolidated interests are immediately transferred to Tribal governments and stay in trust for uses benefiting the tribes and their members."  What has the federal government ever done with fiduciary responsibilities for Tribes that is ethical?  It was the Cobell lawsuit, filed because of fiduciary mismanagement, that created this land buy back program in the first place.  And now Tribes are being deceived again.  Your tax dollar, "awarded" to Tribes, then used by Tribes to buy land which goes into federal hands.

These are only a few examples of how the federal government is working to achieve the UN DRIP agenda to restore land to Tribes.  Other legislation related to land issues can be found here. 

According to the UN NGO National Congress of American Indians document, on pages 26-27, the DOI has placed about 9 million acres of land into trust for Tribes since 1934 stating it represents only about 10% of 90 million acres lost.  Idahoans better start pulling together and revolt against any further land confiscation as this issue will only worsen.

                                                                                        WATER

Established in 2009, the DOI has an Indian Water Rights Office for the purpose of oversee implementation of water settlements.  The Bureau of Reclamation also supports Indian water rights.  The DOI was successful in getting legislation passed in December, 2015 that provides technical assistance and funds for energy while giving preference for hydroelectric licenses to Tribes.

The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the federal government cannot take land into trust for Indian Tribes not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934.  Tester's bill S.732 is an effort to overrule that decision so that more land, including the water rights attached to it, would be available for the government to place into trust for Tribes.

This year, DOI Secretary Jewell actively worked to give your tax dollar to Tribes, including Duck Valley, for restoration of "water rights", fulfilling DRIP requirements.  Funds for improving Tribal water and sanitation infrastructure is provided by the EPA plus grants for building water infrastructures.  Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a bill to fund renovations of Tribal irrigation systems.  The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 met DRIP mandates to bring water disputes to settlement.  According to the DOI Deputy Secretary water right settlements are the right direction for everyone.  The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act 2009 is loaded with placing large parcels of land into federal hands and turning water over to Tribes.  

But, most alarming, Tribes as well as American citizens should be concerned about the trend of banks, most of which are UN business partners, buying water rights and utilities.  These UN crony banks won't care one iota whether Tribes get their perceived right to water.  The whole scam is controlling water and the amount the UN thinks you should have.  Wake up Idaho.

                                                                                      UN

Meanwhile, back at the UN, UN NGOs such as the American Indian Law Alliance, Association on American Indian Affairs, Foundation for the American Indian, Native American Rights Fund, Cherokee Nation, and Western Shoshone Defense Project are just a few groups that work to promote UN ideology and goals.

Activists have also been working with the UN to urge more emphasis on water rights issues.  But going beyond that, there are now demands for "...our right to have our treaties honored and respected as binding international instruments...", rejecting the faux U.S. support of DRIP.  A UN human rights investigator called for the U.S. to return all land back to tribes in 2012.

In 2011 the UN criticized the U.S. of discriminating against indigenous people's right to safe drinking water even though the U.S. had recently joined a UN consensus resolution that recognized the right to water is a right to an adequate standard of living. 

The Doctrine of Discovery has become an focused issue with the UN including groups advocating for its removal.  This would dramatically alter U.S. relations with Tribes and have a devastating impact on America as we know it.  Other bills permitting the use of peyote and educating Indian children in their native culture and language have been passed.  The World Conference of Indigenous People, held in 2014 includes new declarations to incorporate Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development.

More serious, a subject that is never covered in the open, Alaska and Hawaii indigenous groups are asking for UN intervention to end U.S. "occupation".  The UN has a group that works on decolonization.  Beginning on page 18, the UN group discusses the possibility of Hawaii being decolonized, and concluding on page 21, "...there is a process to seek decolonization through the Decolonization Committee" for Hawaii.

                                                                                     Conclusion

Efforts to keep this issue short were impossible.  The information presented in this 3 part series is only a fraction of what the federal government is doing in collusion with the UN and Tribes.  And it is not going to end.  EVERYONE must go back and read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.  We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as so often stated by everyone now.  Every aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been violated by the federal government.  As a Constitutional Republic we are no longer being represented by those we elect.  The federal government is in the business of representing the UN.

The federal government is so embedded with the UN that in 2010 legislation was actually introduced to have an Ambassador to the UN be in the line of succession to the presidency.  Don't be shocked if this comes up again.

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

It is up to us to stop these unconstitutional acts.   It is time for Idahoans to come together, develop a plan, and execute that plan to demand Idaho stand up for state rights and disengage from every unconstitutional federal law being enacted in Idaho.  We must do this or we will continue to be raped of any last piece of liberty that remains.

Technocracy and Land Control
August 4, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

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 minuscule 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 vertebratesand 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.

The War on Private Property – Conclusion (Part 6 of 6)
June 17, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

Part 6 of a 6 Part Series
This is the last of a six-part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two, ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Part four exposed those who are involved in the effort to redesign Island Park. How Island Park residents are being excluded as a primary voice in decisions was exposed in part five. Now that the full truth is out, where does Island Park go from here?
What would my father think about building artificial Elk passages along US 20? He might possibly think that saving Elk from horrendous deaths would be good. But, as one who always took caution by looking for them during his drive, he would most likely blame people for being irresponsible. However, if he was told the truth about the hidden agenda behind these passages, he would ferociously object to them. In no way would he support any activity that would alter Island Park, remove property rights or freedoms, or incorporate her into Yellowstone. He would fight for her.
So now the truth is out. There are substantial organizations and foundations that work with federal agencies to promote connecting large landscapes into conservation with eventual regulatory requirements that will dictate how the Island Park community will be designed and how property owners will be required to design their own land, or even use it. This is a covert agenda by outside groups, NGOs, and both state and federal governments to alter Island Park into some man-made design, making it look like a zoo where wildlife can be “enjoyed” rather than letting her exist naturally as she has for generations.
The starting point is wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), the Elk who cross US 20 two times a year on their migratory path. Although Targhee Pass is identified as a primary area of crossing and need for an overpass, the Elk actually make their crossing a few miles south of Bighorn Hills. This would require fencing which would force the Elk to alter their natural path.
No Elk, or any other wildlife, should die on their journey. The WVC numbers vary depending on which source is cited. All studies were conducted for the specific outcome of overpasses and connectivity while downplaying other alternatives, or even consideration for other possible options. Has the number of WVC, or even the number of Elk deaths increased in 50 years? Those numbers are never mentioned. These initiatives, NGOs, and government agencies with a massive agenda have decided to make the Elk an issue, with their bias, to implement their predetermined solutions.
Those who are part of this agenda, these initiatives, will try to dissuade us from accepting the truth, controlling and manipulating the dialogue on compassion for wildlife and the “threat of human-wildlife conflict“, while continuing to hide what is coming next and who is involved. That “conflict” is a fabrication from their fantasies. The perception that there is no compassion for the Elk will be promoted. They will try to marginalize folks who do not support their agenda and who are willing to listen to the truth. A negative impression of those who oppose the initiative will be painted as uncaring and disrespectful towards the beautiful animals we all care about. None of this is true. This type of rhetoric is only to distract from the truth, while defining you as the enemy. The larger discussion about private property restrictions and impacts, fencing, acquisition, multiple use reductions, other wildlife and endangered species, the bison and brucellosis, and the connectivity agenda have all been avoided and hidden, and will continue to be avoided if allowed by Island Park guardians. Elk are loved just as much by those who seek the truth. Perhaps their love for the Elk is greater for not wanting to change their natural habitat, forcing them into a man-made environment. There is no reason to be ashamed for wanting to protect them and Island Park.
Our Founding Fathers believed property rights exemplified the foundation of liberty.
“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams
“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay (First Chief Justice)
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
And others believed this as well.
“The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” Arthur Lee
“Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” Calvin Coolidge
Property rights are the most precious gift of our Republic. We are not a democracy where the mob rules, we are a Republic and a nation whose foundation is based on laws, laws that protect our rights. Because we are not a democracy, and in spite of what they may believe, the masses of individuals, groups, government agencies, and wealth behind this agenda do not rule. Fabricated changes to boundaries and rules about land by those with ideological beliefs must never be accepted.
It seems most conflicts in the world are centered around the theft of property, the taking of land from others, often leading to battle. The theft occurring now is different in that there is no battle, but the war is the same.
Island Park is sovereign, independent from Yellowstone Park, with clear jurisdictional boundaries, not only at a city and county level, but at the state level. These boundaries must be protected and defended.
Island Park citizens must come together. They must become knowledgeable about NGOs, federal and state laws, and understand their rights. Understanding the hidden agenda is critical to understanding what rights will be taken from them. Citizens must ask questions, demand answers, and stand up for their rights, both as an Island Park resident and private property owner.
Others must be educated on the issues and brought on board with regular meetings that keep everyone current on the issues. When not in residency everyone should stay connected through all means of social media, emails, and other methods, sharing information as it becomes available. Move the discussion beyond compassion for the Elk to the real issues being hidden.
Coalition groups or advisory committees should be created to insist that your voice is the primary voice that must be heard with NGOs and other initiatives taking a back seat. Let them know their agenda is not welcome.
A broader discussion in solving WVC is needed with other solutions brought forth, including alternatives that haven’t been given any consideration. And there are others. If the technocrats say an alternative is not beneficial, research it, find out what other areas have tried them, and the results. Come up with new ideas and solutions and present them to ITD. Keep the pressure on them to listen. Land alteration and forcing a change in the migration path of Elk are not the only answers to protect them.
As the guardians of Island Park, to those who are most bonded and connected to the land, stand up for her right to exist naturally, and your rights. Become involved and never allow anyone to change it into an artificially designed, faux zoo landscape. Appreciation for Island Park comes from how it has always existed.

​

The War on Private Property – The Connectivity Agenda (Part 5 of 6)
June 5, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Part 5 of a 6 Part Series
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.
My father never thought much of the government, but he was a good citizen. He fought for his country and was proud to have served. When he learned his injury wasn’t severe enough for the GI bill to help with carpentry school, well, he just sent the blank application back and taught himself. That was the kind of man he was, never expected anyone to carry the load for him. Integrity, character, honesty, and always trying to be on the right side were more important to him than what the government told him to do. Laws were not needed to tell him to respect the land and its gifts. He just wanted to be left alone to live freely, causing no harm to others.
When some juveniles shot the swans at Swan Lake he was devastated but relieved when they were caught and required to spend the next summer working at a bird refuge, hoping they would learn nature’s value and what atrocity they had committed. As much justice as possible was served but the loss of those swans was…well there was never enough justice for them. The National Park Service (NPS) policysupports the senseless and barbaric slaughter of Bison, especially those wandering outside the park. This policy and its execution are as guilty as those juveniles. There is no justification for this type of act.
During the 70’s a horrific beetle infestation went through Island Park, all the trees on his property were lost. He was livid no efforts were made to thwart the problem, not because of his loss but because of the forest destruction. One day he said, “Let’s go get a tree”. Driving deep into the forest on a back road, on forest land, I asked him what we were doing. He replied, “I want to get a Douglas Fir.” Reminding him the USFS wouldn’t like that…”Oh, come on, they aren’t going to miss a little tree”. How do you say no to your father committing tree theft? We plucked that lucky little sapling out of the ground, took it home, and planted it. He nurtured and babied that tree, gave it extra water, constantly making sure it was thriving. Knowing trees like different company, he was practicing good silviculture. And just maybe, it was his gesture to the government that the forest does not belong to the government, it belongs to us, the people, and as such, all of us are responsible for its protection, care, and survival.
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 (CLLN), 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 CLLN 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 approvedfor 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 canceled. 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 War on Private Property – Corridors to Connectivity (Part 4 of 6)
June 1, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Part 4 of a 6 Part Series
This is the fourth of a six-part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered and corridors were explained in part three. Now it is time to put all of it together with connectivity, the true agenda.
Here is the map of the boundaries in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), where the corridors and components lay.

​Keeping corridors within the ecosystem boundary is the foundation for connectivity with Island Park as a prime target in the GYE. NGOs and scientists are using the US 20 Corridor and Elk migration to advance connectivity at Targhee Pass. It has nothing to do with saving Elk, the Elk are being used for emotional manipulation and a distraction. Several targeted areas for redesign have now been narrowed down to just the Targhee Pass, only because it is the closest site for connectivity. With the Strategic Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identification of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and priority habitat conservation, along with other corridors, the plan has been established for sequential, consecutive, and progressive steps towards connectivity in the GYE, giving wildlife “room to roam”. Island Park has a yellow star for high connectivity, this connectivity plan has been in the works for several years, and that is why she is being targeted.

​Scientists and NGOs believe connectivity is needed for species population persistence, ensuring that one or many species can move freely throughout the landscape. Because they also believe humans cause connectivity “fragmentation” with land development, a highly aggressive effort is underway to convince land owners to place their land into conservation easements (CE), restrict or ban road use, restrict development and growth boundaries, buy land, and take advantage of road corridors for halting fragmentation. To these groups, connectivity means highly restricted human use to none at all. Corridors and connectivity are the means to control land use. Once land is in their possession, regardless of being a CE, protected or restricted area, or any other designation, control of that land will be dictated by the government, NGOs, and land trust groups.
If your county elected officials allow it, these groups will try and convince them to change land use planning in comprehensive plans, forcing you to comply with conservation measures on your property, reduce land use, and dictate or halt how you use your land. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has already “provided site-specific science in this region to aid Fremont County, Idaho to prepare a comprehensive growth and subdivision plan that considers the importance of protecting biodiversity and wildlife migration corridors.” The Northwest Property Owners Alliance (NWPOA) in northern Idaho has already been through it and can tell you what will happen if your county acquiesces. They experienced the same dynamics being used by the US 20 Corridor study team including failure to notify, misinformation, and domination by special interest groups. Their article on environmentalism really captures what Island Park is experiencing.
In 2015, after two years of steering committee meetings (including UN NGOs and Canada), the Greater Northern Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) released a preliminary “Connectivity Pilot Project” report and “…selected connectivity as a priority shared landscape objective…”. The second of four objectives was to, “Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes.” The corridors discussed in part three, plus the others listed here will all be used to justify placing Island Park into a massive, large scale, conservation area and eventual integration into the GYE as a protected area, under complete conservation status, with controlled land use. This agenda has been in the works for years, using Elk and the US 20 corridor is just the first step.
Their “data basin” is used to “inventory connectivity data”…”identify important areas for action”…”identify potential connectivity opportunities”…with the data also capturing…”‘human footprint’ layers”…”land use stressors that may be expected to impact connectivity”…”as well as map layers representing jurisdictional boundaries.”
Island Park is specifically targeted in this report. Using the High Divide (HD) as their “connection”, the short term objective included mitigating US 20 and Hwy 87 corridors and habitat augmentation at highway crossings. Long term objectives included annexing Henry’s Fork and Island Park from the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GBLCC) to GNLCC; supporting collaborative work of state and federal agencies, and NGOs to conserve private lands and connect public lands; focusing on landscape water conservation; implementing highway mitigation for key linkages; and creating disincentives for wildlife urban interface (WUI-zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development).
Participants in this report included Gary Tabor, Michael Whitfield, Gregg Servheen, and Renee Seidler, the new ITD road ecologist expert for the US 20 Corridor plan. Ms. Seidler has stated her belief in connectivity, her other work is on connectivity, the cooperative agreement between the ITD and IDFG states the job responsibilities included developing programmatic and site specific information and criteria on wildlife connectivity, and her job description states the same.
Conveniently, IDFG Wildlife Coordinator, Gregg Servheen, is on the GNLCC Steering Committee mentioned above, and signed the contract between IDFG and ITD for the position Ms. Seidler eventually took through the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). Mr. Servheen also works on helping you turn your land over for conservation easements (CE) through the Private Landowner Network, or find conservation resources. He worked with the Western Governor’s Association (WGA) to build databases on biological information for preserving wildlife corridors and habitats, and the goal to “complete a connectivity/linkage plan” along the High Divide. While all of this gives the appearance of impropriety, it is nothing more than a self-created, conglomerate of government agencies and NGOs, operating under no legal authority, working without public involvement on plans to address issues they created, disguising it as their concern about wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), and which will eventually be used as an excuse for wildlife connectivity. WVC are nothing more than a distraction to keep you from learning about the connectivity agenda. A copy of the contract can be downloaded here.
In fact, the ITD and IDFG were so confident the US 20 Corridor project was in the bag, they hired Ms. Seidler by April 17th to move on to the connectivity phase. This was at least 10 days prior to the canceled April 27th meeting that was supposed to include Island Park residents and their input.

​Ms. Seidler is well prepared for this job having previously conducted a study with IDFG in 2014 called: 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. The summary states, “Conservation and mitigation efforts for Elk and Moose…will likely have significant positive impacts on habitat connectivity…”. A copy of this report can be downloaded here.
The GNLCC held a major workshop in 2015, Conservation of Continental Connectivity through Community Based Collaboration. Presenting at this workshop, the High Divide celebrated their increase in CE from 194,483 acres to 1.2 million in 9 years, and their work in connecting large core protected areas and wildlife connectivity. Their goal is Ecological linkage between protected core areas to conserve wide-­‐ranging wildlife in response to climate change, not WVC. To them, “Working Across Boundaries” includes “Local expertise—stakeholder input”. This has rarely been sought from Island Park, but rather from an assembly of scientists, government officials, and NGOs, few who even have one connection to Island Park. The goal is complete “protected” connectivity in large landscape areas where Island Park sits. GNLCC held a Resource Managers Connectivity workshop in April, 2015, with Ms. Seidler as a participant and Gary Tabor and Michael Whitfield as speakers. Mr. Whitfield was also on the program committee for the 2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation held in Washington, D.C.. Federal government agencies and NGOs comprised 76% of the participants, with only 1% landowners participating.
As the founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Gary Tabor has created both a Connectivity Conservation Hub in partnership with the GNLCC, located in Jackson, and a Ecological Connectivity Project with all the data and maps needed to conserve “a permable (sic) landscape with connectivity across its geography”. According to Mr. Tabor, “A corridor is a distinct component of the landscape that provides connectivity. Wildlife corridors specifically facilitate the movement of animals, while other types of corridors may support connectivity for plants or ecological processes.”
The Ecological Connectivity Project brings “managers” together who focus on connectivity. “The goal of the project is to conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes.” Michael Whitfield from the High Divide is also involved. This project does not include any Island Park residents, only government officials, NGOs, and initiative leaders. The justification for this project are primarily based on executive orders, policy resolutions, white papers, secretarial orders, and regulatory decisions that are not found in Idaho or federal law. However, GNLCC funding for 2017 is directed towards supporting this project for water, species, terrestrial and migration connectivity in large landscapes, your tax dollar.

Hidden on a US Geological Survey website is the 2015 proposal, “Landscape Conservation Design in the High Divide” with Mr. Whitfield as the Project Coordinator, and who is also the executive director of the Heart of the Rockies (HOR) initiative. Multiple NGOs, land trusts, and federal and state agencies are involved. The project summary “…seeks support to identify and evaluate future landscape configurations…emphasizing wildlife connectivity between large protected core areas…” such as Yellowstone. The need for “Landscape Conservation Design” was cited as one of the elements of the USFWS Strategic Habitat Conservation Plan. “A conservation design (cluster development) is a type of “Planned Unit Development” in which the underlying zoning and subdivision ordinances are modified to allow buildings (usually residences) to be grouped together on part of the site while permanently protecting the remainder of the site from development.” This project supports the GNLCC Strategic Conservation Framework, one goal being to “Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems…”. All of the data collection will be used to redesign Island Park into some artificial utopian paradise, rather than let her exist as she has for centuries, or be developed through local representation. And with all due respect sir, do not lump residents into a “Human Modification Index. Workshops on this project were supposedly held in Nov 15′ through Fed 16′, conveniently when most residents were not available. This is how subversive these groups are. A copy of the proposal can be downloaded here.
These individuals and groups have been working with each other, making decisions about Island Park and the residents, behind their backs. Do those who live in Island Park want their covert plans?
The following initiatives and organizations are actively involved in the connectivity agenda: Heart of the Rockies (HOR); Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and Future West (FW).
“Although America’s national parks include some of the wildest places on Earth, no park in the U.S….is large enough to support the full range of native biological diversity over the long-term. In order to accommodate wide-ranging animals…our parks must be connected to other protected areas via wildlife corridors and their boundaries should be expanded wherever possible.” (Rewilding Our National Parks)
A brief word why so many “experts” are making the decisions. These scientists are actually technocrats, experts in science who have a lot of power in, or influence with the government and are an adherent of technocracy. Technocracy is the power shift from elected representatives and bureaucrats to technocrats (engineers, managers, scientists); management of society by technical experts; or a society that is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. Is this not where we are at? Patrick Wood has a series of excellent videos on his website, Technocracy News and Trends, that provide valuable insight into how our government has transitioned over to these “experts” and away from the people. It is the responsibility of elected officials to listen to those who elected them, not technocrats or special interest groups, or those who are not Fremont county residents. Have we abdicated our inherent power and responsibility of self-governance to others? Or has it been stolen from us?
No efforts have been taken to disclose or involve Island Park residents in these plans, no alternatives to overpasses and fencing have been discussed, no input has been sought from anyone except the UN NGOs, cooperatives, technocrats, and government agencies, and No discussion has ever taken place on their plans for connectivity. Studies were conducted for the US 20 Corridor plan without required prior notification to Island Park residents. And why should they bother, the protection of Elk is not the issue, it is a distraction from what they are really planning.
All evidence points to the agenda for connectivity, on websites, in reports, participants own statements, and in studies. The ITD, their study team, NGOs, and initiatives have not been transparent with Island Park residents, misrepresented what they are actually doing, and have violated every drop of what is ethical. Shame on all of them.
It is important to remember, there is no federal legislation for this agenda. What law allows arbitrary erasure of jurisdictional boundaries? This is a concerted effort by individuals and groups with an ideology, who have successfully engaged the government with the same ideology, and are proceeding forward without any laws. Island Park has a population of 286 as of 2016. That swells to several thousand during the summer when residents come to their summer homes. The number of individuals pursuing this connectivity and conservation agenda are in the thousands, with millions of dollars being funneled into it. Island Park residents, who own homes and pay taxes, are the guardians of Island Park, and who elect city and country officials to represent them. Officials are obligated to listen to their voice, not special interest groups from other states or counties. The technocrats and elite who believe they know better, and who hide their agenda, are usurping those rights. Is this what Fremont County citizens want?
The Declaration of Independence states governments derive “…their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Idaho Constitution, Article I, Section 2 states, “All political power is inherent in the people.” It is time to recapture the self governance our Founding Fathers created for us.
No individual wants Elk harmed and WVC must certainly be addressed. However, tearing up and environmentally engineering the land for ulterior motives is not the solution, there are other alternatives beyond what the technocrats say won’t work that require consideration. Island Park residents should be the lead in discussing these alternatives, how they want to protect her and the Elk, and the ones who hold the right to make those decisions.
Unlike my family, these technocrats and NGOs have zero connection to Island Park, spending their time reducing it to nothing more than a mathematical formula, and assigning point values for the purpose of artificially engineering it into something that it isn’t. There is no Island Park asset that has more or less value than another and in spite of what they say or believe, this land is not “fragmented” by us, it is fully connected in every way. They are welcome to visit and walk on the path they designated, but respectfully, do not come to Island Park for environmental engineering, passing it off as a transportation project for saving wildlife when your true goal is connectivity and “conservation design”. As her Guardians, Island Park is ours to protect, not yours to alter.
Part 5 will reveal where all of this originated.
​

Corridors and Connectivity (Part 3 of 6)
May 21, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Part 3 of a 6 Part Series
This is the third of a six-part series. The reader is strongly urged to visit these websites and study what is discussed in these articles in order to make an informed decision.
Part one covered data collection in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) which was used to create the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) for species and habitat protection. In part two ecosystems and its components were covered These topics create the foundation for corridors and connectivity.
My family’s connection to Island Park began with my paternal grandfather who was an engineer for Union Pacific. His route traveled from Pocatello, through Big Springs, and on into Montana. When old enough, my father joined him on these trips and was dropped off at Big Springs, where he spent his time fishing until his father picked him up on the way back. As he grew into a man he spent more time in Island Park camping, fishing, and hunting with my maternal grandfather, learning the area like the back of his hand. His connection was so strong the first thing he did after basic training was to go there on his two-week furlough, taking his very pregnant wife along, before going to battle in WWII. Following the war every minute he could find was spent in Island Park. Waiting for summer wasn’t enough, winter had to be conquered. He often bragged that he was the first person to snowmobile into his cabin, on what was possibly the most pathetic excuse for a snowmobile, which had to be started with a rope pull, and whose speed was that of a turtle. My story is very similar to others who have a strong heritage and connection to this land. My family started with the railway corridor, connecting us to the Island Park community, now primarily by highways. Wildlife also has its migratory corridor which still exists today. These connections are meant to stay and not be environmentally engineered into something different, or usurped into another entity.
Varying greatly in size, shape, and composition, corridors can be described as routes or land tracts used by migrating animals, land designated for specific purpose such as highways like the US 20 Corridor, or they connect “fragmented” patches of habitat. Corridors are seen as a way to increase connectivity, such as transportation or between patches of fragmentation supposedly caused by humans due to different types of land development. Scientists often call this the “anthropogenic” effect, meaning fragmentation is the result of human influence on nature, which NGOs and scientists describe as disruption and “barriers” for plants and animals to survive. They believe corridors, especially protected corridors, provide an unbroken path of suitable habitat and safe passage, if it weren’t for humans disrupting it, and connectivity. Three types of corridors follow.
Biodiversity corridors are areas of vegetation that allow animals to travel from one patch to another, providing shelter and food for different species. Blaming anthropogenic activity, scientists believe that all species become isolated and unable to migrate as intended because of human “barriers”. Elk don’t care if they cross your property to get where they are going, they and other grand creatures do it all the time. The agenda underway is identifying biodiversity corridors for conservation to restrict or mandate a full ban on all “anthropogenic” activity, thus ensuring species movement between patches, which already exists now. Island Park residents know differently, we have co-existed with all animal species and their movement from before the time of my father.
Wildlife corridors are tracts of land allowing wildlife to migrate for food, shelter, and mating between habitats with migratory paths as an example. Wildlife use biodiversity corridors during their journey for necessary food and shelter. Elk, moose, and other migratory species in Island Park have migrated along these paths for centuries. Who in Island Park has not watched them on their land as they move through?
Riparian corridors have everything to do with water. This includes wetlands, marshes, ponds, streams, creeks, springs, and lakes. Water species such as fish and beavers, and plants that thrive in wet environments, are all included in these corridors. These corridors naturally intersect with biodiversity and wildlife corridors and are often extended by scientists to include buffers, zones, and land for restricted use. Everything is connected to water.
However, scientists believe anthropogenic activity is destroying natural corridors and corridors should be sewn together for connectivity, with no “disruption” or “barriers”. NGOs, scientists, and the government want us to believe they have the knowledge and authority to artificially engineer corridors. Sorry, Mother Nature beat you to it, her corridors already exist naturally, scientists are only artificial engineers and will never surpass Mother Nature. It is disheartening to watch scientists attempt to environmentally engineer land and corridors that are already perfect with roads and private land not disrupting migration paths, the paths are still there.
In 2008, the Western Governor’s Association (WGA) participated in this agenda, signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the DOI, DOE, and Department of Agriculture to “coordinate and identify key wildlife corridors and crucial wildlife habitats for uniform mapping and recommendations on policy options and tools for “preserving those landscapes”. Did Governor Otter contact you for your opinion? How about those other governors making decisions for Idaho?
While the USDA touts the benefits of corridors, there are also studies that have been conducted on the detrimental effects. Because species are crowded into an artificially-designed landscape it is often an invitation for invasive species, whether plant or animal, and increased predator behavior. There is also the belief that fragmentation lowers genetic diversity if one herd can’t get to another. Elk have been moved around to different locations by scientists for experimentation on their genetic diversity and divergence (mutation). What impact does this have on Elk and the natural order of the environment which is subject to natural laws, not human?
Another aspect to corridors is conservation easements. According to the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition, “Often CE properties are enrolled into programs for introduction of endangered species or development of ‘corridors,’ an initiative itself that can profoundly affect communities, industry and private lands. The introduction of endangered species substantially impacts the productivity of neighboring properties.” This is the intention of SWAP, identifying species of greatest concern and habitats needing protection. Something to keep in mind if you are asked about placing your land into a conservation easement. Your property may have already been identified for conservation “value” which might contribute to an effort for corridor conservation.
These corridors, and all their components, lie within an ecological boundary known as an ecosystem. Ecosystem can be defined as “a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.” Scientists have included Island Park in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). The GYE boundaries are shown in this map.

The American Wildlands “Corridors for Life” program from 2007, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) with whom the new road ecologist Renee Seidler is connected, and the USFS focus on creating wildlife corridors for connectivity while the North Pacific LCC, Washington State University, and GNLCC focus on riparian connectivity. Using corridors for connectivity is published in their agendas. The scientists who conducted studies in Island Park even admit that wildlife overpasses are needed for connectivity but have not disclosed that to the public. Island Park residents are provided only information about wildlife vehicle collisions to justify the need for wildlife overpasses while the bigger threat, changing the environmental structure, culture, identity, ownership, and heritage of Island Park, is omitted.
Gary Tabor, founder of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and who mingles with all the local initiatives, worked with Va. Rep Donald Beyer (D) on H.R. 6448 (114th): Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Although not enacted in 2016, there are plans to reintroduce it again this year. This bill would create a “National Wildlife Corridors System” which would mean federal law for corridor designation, much like a national monument designation. Island Park residents don’t want to be a federally designated anything. Also not welcome, a Virginia representative making decisions that would potentially affect Island Park.
The new ITD “road ecologist”, Renee Seidler, participated in a migratory study on Pronghorn in Wyoming. While the WCS claims the “U.S. Forest Service established the nation’s first federally designated wildlife corridor” in 2008, the truth is somewhat different.
It was not a declaration of the “first” federally designated corridor, it was a forest plan amendment that merely allowed “continued successful pronghorn migration.” Amending the “…Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan by designating a Pronghorn Migration Corridor…”, it added the following standard, “All projects, activities, and infrastructure authorized in the designated Pronghorn Migration Corridor will be designed, timed and/or located to allow continued successful migration of the pronghorn…”, while not constraining “…activities on private land…” within the forest boundary. The report also states, “…activities currently authorized by the Forest Service within the corridor coexist with successful migration…” such as grazing, and concluded that no changes were needed for grazing or infrastructure. So, the Bridger-Teton National Forest Supervisor, in a NEPA Environmental Assessment phase, casually gave a name to a section of forestland that already existed, the NGOs then exaggerating it into some grand event which didn’t exist. There was no congressional act or official designation, no state declaration, no proclamation, nothing.
The BLM is not part of this forest plan amendment. “The amendment just signed does not protect the entire pronghorn migration – it applies only to 45 miles of the migration corridor located on Forest Service lands. The remaining 30 miles of the migration route occur on private lands and areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.” Seasonal protection of the Pronghorn is provided by the BLM but there is no federally designated Pronghorn corridor as the NGOs would have us believe.
Now, this exaggerated claim has been stretched to declaring the “Path of the Pronghorn” as the “only federally-designated wildlife migration corridor in the United States”. It is misleading and dishonest. Beware, the WCS is watching Craters of the Moon stating, Pronghorn are “…restricted by mountains, fences, a highway, and fields of jagged lava from Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve…”. How do those Pronghorn migrate every year in spite of these restrictions and natural landscapes?
Using the Elk migratory path is just the first step, next will be a demand to protect the biodiversity corridor, then a riparian corridor, any corridor will be used to continue sewing them together for control over the land while describing it as connectivity, and for a “seamless” integration into the GYE. They don’t care about the Elk, they are only interested in using them to take land for their agenda.
Island Park residents have “connectivity” with their land as my father did, and those before him, crossing different “corridors” that allow us to remain “connected” to our land. We get it, we know the abundance of gifts that are provided. But there is no justification for taking what already is a blended and pristine area, breaking it into ecological categories and corridors, violating state and county sovereignty, then creating plans to alter it. This misrepresents the reality that Island Park is already connected, in every way.
The only disconnection is the one that is fabricated by scientists, NGOs, and the government. It is their imaginary utopia being imposed on Island Park residents, and those poor Elk. The greater plan by scientists and NGOs is putting Island Park into full conservation status without your consent, creating artificial landscape designs and boundaries, convincing you that corridors aren’t connected because a road or your house is in the way, telling you connectivity is needed for integration into an ecosystem where it already exists, and destroying our God given right and legal authority as Fremont County residents to control how land is used.
From the Declaration of Independence: It becomes necessary for one people to assume:
“…the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”
“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, governments… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” The consent of the governed has not been given for these plans.
Part 4 in this series will discuss connectivity, who is involved, and its implications.

​

Biodiversity and Ecosystems (Part 2 of 6)
May 15, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Part 2 of a 6 Part Series
This is the second 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.
After gathering wood in the forest for a warm fire, my father insisted that we not only clean up our mess, but clean up other slash and debris in the area. I did not understand at the time he was teaching us how to take care of the land in Island Park. Another dreaded chore was cutting down tall, overgrown grass around the cabin during the hot August summers. He knew this was a fire load that could potentially fuel a major fire. But we also went on our special trip for huckleberries. No habitat was destroyed, the vegetation is still there, and the huckleberries still grow. Daddy, thank you for teaching me how to care for and respect the land in Island Park.
Coined in 1935, ecosystem is defined as “a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.” Ecosystems have different components of growing, living species.
One component is biodiversity. It is defined as “diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment.” Island Park has a multitude of different species which we all love such as wild strawberries, morels, watercress, trees, rainbows, brookies, skunks, porcupines, and the beloved moose and elk. From all indications, each continues to survive in Island Park.
Wetlands are “land that has a wet and spongy soil, as a marsh, swamp, or bog.” Island Park has the most beautiful marsh behind Elk Creek. In spite of weekly horseback riding through that marsh there was no long term damage. The marsh still exists.
Riparian refers to the bank of a river or lake and anything living around it such as fish, other water species, and vegetation. Elk and other animal species use it for water and food. We use it to cast a fly for fish that might take a bite or jumping in for a swim, or maybe just look for a pretty rock.
Wildlife, biodiversity, wetlands, and riparian areas are just a few ecosystem components. They are interconnected, dependent on each other for survival, and terms used by NGOs and government agencies to justify their work. Humans are one component not always mentioned. Not seen as a necessary presence in the ecosystem, humans are more often than not considered a destructive force, requiring removal for ecosystem protection. Conservation and removing all human activity are scientists and NGO goals.
There is grave concern that land development is encroaching upon buffer zones, areas that surround a protected area which are intended to shield the core area from man’s activities, thus allowing more space for mammals. Private land ownership is in a precarious position. There are ongoing discussions about controlling land use planning from regional to municipal levels. Seen as part of “ecosystem management”, land use planning objectives include conservation, stopping development, zoning and growth controls, and increasing restrictions. How you design your home and land will be dictated to you. This article by ScienceDirect explains it beautifully.
Land, plant, and animal species don’t understand boundaries, extending themselves across states, into designated parks such as West Yellowstone, and even across countries. Ecosystems are viewed in the same manner, there are no jurisdictional boundaries. NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC), believe these ecosystems, components, and corridors, have the right to protection regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. These boundary erasures create a regional concept, erasing boundaries between states and counties, the United States and other countries, and create an artificial “conservation boundary”. Essentially, the United States is being divided up into regions with artificial boundaries made up of different conservation areas. Here is a map of “conservation planning boundaries” from the Wildlands Network, which includes the current agenda in Island Park, Yellowstone to Yukon and Crown of the Continent.

Part of the proposed US 20 IP Corridor Plan is the placement of artificial overpasses for safer passage during Elk migration, just a first step towards creating artificial corridors for connectivity. Each ecosystem component will be gradually introduced for protection, such as riparian areas. Riparian areas extend into surrounding wetlands and other water sources which will extend boundaries further for conservation. Ecosystem components will eventually be used to place the whole environment into some type of corridor needing protection, either through conservation or designation as a protected site. Remember, your private property will be impacted by this.
All of this falls under the Climate change umbrella. According to NGOs drastic action must be taken to not only conserve areas and protect them from humans, “mitigation” measures must be undertaken to prevent loss from development and climate change. The essence of mitigation is to avoid, minimize, and offset environmental impacts to lands and waters. In 2016 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released their new Mitigation Policy. This policy provides a framework and landscape-scale approach for mitigation with increasing conservation, no net loss of resources or values, and effective linkage for landscape scale conservation strategies. Created by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) always uses science endorsing climate change. However, there is science that does not support the idea of climate change, or even if it exists. According to the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) there are opposing scientific views. Even the former Director of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, now has doubts.
As ecological engineers, scientists believe in giving “point value” to everything, a mathematical formula. Although the Island Park NGO conservation agenda has not yet advanced to creating corridors for other components, the same value points will be assigned to them. An example of this can be found in the Cramer Safety Solutions report used in the US 20 IP Corridor Plan, starting on page 159. For some reason, land ownership and recreation receive low point value.
The environment is remarkably skilled at regenerating itself. Our only job is using it and helping it when needed, like cleaning up the floor bed to reduce fuel loads. It is interesting that such a dichotomy exists with NGOs. On one hand, their agenda is leaving the environment in its natural state. At the same time, they are creating environmental engineering schemes to alter it.
Use of this land, from the time my father was a teenager to present, did not cause any permanent damage requiring protection. Yet the future generation from that era, the current generation, is denied the right to use and enjoy this land as he did, with efforts underway to completely end all use. There is nothing that justifies this. The current wildlife passage project has nothing to do with Elk. This is a systematic agenda to alter where and how we live, and erase sovereign boundaries. It is part of a broader agenda to destroy state sovereignty and our foundation of government upon which America was built.
My bond with Island Park grew from touching her land, hearing her sounds, seeing her beauty, tasting her gifts, and caring for her. Isolation from humans and landscape alteration are heartless and inhumane agendas, advanced by those who have no bond with her.
To all those NGOs and scientists, we have been, and still are, the custodian, guardian, and protector of Island Park and her gifts, way before you were born or formed into little special interest groups, this was not invented by you, and we care for it more responsibly. There has been no long-term damage to Island Park from those who have lived here for generations, there is nothing broke that needs fixed. The most comprehensive and destructive land polices were only born when NGOs became involved. Ask any rancher or farmer, they know. The true agenda is pushing us off our land into cities, taking control of our resources, and dictating how, if at all, we can use what is rightfully ours. Island Park is our heritage, our ancestry, we are a native and indigenous people, and we will defend her. There is no bond between you and Island Park such as mine.
Part 3 will discuss corridors.

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) to SWAP
May 6, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Part 1 of a 6 Part Series
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.
As a child in Island Park, frequent visits by a squirrel to the cabin resulted in my grandfather naming him Pete. With various family coaxing Pete to take food from our hand, my grandfather was the only one who succeeded. Pete was a neighbor that visited often for the food left out for him and our family was honored by his visits. Respectfully staying inside until she moved on with her journey, we watched many mother moose passing by with calves, respecting their rights to passage. Placing land into conservation status will forever remove these experiences. As private landowners, we live with animals, and they live with us without any harm to them. We are meant to be together.
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 UN NGOs. The Wilderness Society (WS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Defenders of Wildlife, NatureServ (a partner of the UN 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 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 landowners 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 UN 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 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 UN NGOs. They have a renewed and aggressive goal to convince private landowners to place their land into a conservation easement 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. Pete, I was so honored and blessed to have known you.

So Long, Island Park; Hello, Yellowstone Highlands   
April 6, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

​Although this article is regarding Island Park, every Idahoan throughout the state will be affected by the same agenda.
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 documentthat explains everything.
Now Island Park sits right smack dab in a caldera created years ago from volcano activity. This makes 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 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, 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.  “…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, land can be resold to the government for a higher price, and 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 document below gives just a brief summary of corrective action plans to reduce all of these “threats”. All actions can be found in the Section link boxes.
plan.docx
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 versionof 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 NOwhen 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.
​

Kiss Idaho Goodbye – The rest of the story
April 1, 2017 by Karen Schumacher

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 (
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.
​

Kiss Idaho Goodbye
Another Major Land Takeover By Karen Schumacher

Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 
As noted in the previous post 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  High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone (GY), and the land trust partnership group Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOR), 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 mapfor 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 planincludes 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.

The Columbia River Treaty could be the death of Idaho 
Originally written on  January 7, 2017 
by Karen Schumacher

With the new United Nations (UN) and federal government grand plan to steal what remains of our land through the ruse of ecosystem management, there is one grand daddy that will take all of Idaho in one fell swoop.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the Columbia Treaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an “international treaty”.
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering “the basin as a whole,without regard for the international border.”
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a “basin” treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
This is a map of the Columbia River and Canadian dams, the river itself just barely touching Idaho. The Montana Libby dam was agreed to by Canada.

This treaty successfully accomplished the goals of controlling flooding, producing hydropower, and irrigation management. In the treaty, for any potential unresolved disputes, the final decision could be referred to the UN International Court of Justice. How about that, no Idaho citizen has a say in the matter, but the UN does.
In 1995 Canada created the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT). Somehow the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and the CBT refer to the river as the “International Columbia River“. The NPCC adheres to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, you know, that UN organization. One CBT goal was to “…promote the social, economic, and environmental well-being in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.”, all three Agenda 21 pillars. After GHW Bush signed Agenda 21 (Chapter 18) in 1992, the U.S. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project began in 1994, under WJ Clinton, incorporating the same three pillars. Meanwhile, Canada also promotes sustainable development, aka Agenda 21.
Although the treaty was intended to run in perpetuity one clause allowed both countries the opportunity to give ten years notice, starting in 2014, for unilaterally renegotiating or terminating the treaty. The flood control aspect expires in 2024, unless both reach agreement to extend it. The 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review began in 2010, four years prior to 2014. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), operated by the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planned workshops for public input. Do you remember being invited?
Ok, so what, they are going to renegotiate the treaty. Well, it now goes way beyond that.
Ecosystem ManagementGiven the belief that environmental and social factors were not considered in the original treaty, being unfair to Tribes and the environment, negotiations must now include those factors. After all, we must remember our loyalty to Agenda 21 and the UN. The gimmick to do such? Ecosystems. All of these groups, agencies, and governments are now going to massively expand the treaty to include not just the river, but the entire Columbia basin. Here is the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review basin map. It clearly shows just how much area they plan to incorporate into the treaty with Idaho obliterated. Click here for larger view.

As explained in the BLM posts, the agenda is now incorporating ecosystems into all decisions. This is the final tool that will kill all sovereignty over state and private land. Every species, habitat, wetland, watershed, river, insect, grass, bush, water drop, and more will need protection…there will be no justification for any one of us to use any land because of ecosystem damage we cause. Plus it gives reason to regulate private land, if you are lucky enough to possess it.
A simple ecosystem definition is “the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit”. Others make it more complex in that “…ecosystems themselves represent part of the earth’s biodiversity.”, and humans are destroying this biodiversity. In this description there is no mention of humans in the ecosystem environment.
The Department of Interior (DOI), which manages the BLM, USFWS (pg 31),USFS, NPS (pg 19), BIA, and USGS among other agencies, has declared a more effective “mitigation” policy, defined as “…mitigation that includes the “preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC)” of areas destroyed in the name of progress.” That means you, human being, you have and continue to destroy land. The effort is “…attempting to establish a department wide mitigation strategy that will protect natural resources as the US prepares for an expected rise in development projects on public land.” This references the Resource Theft in the BLM posts, more land confiscation for the federal government to engage in renewable and other energy projects for land and energy control in partnership with foreign countries to redistribute our wealth. Here is the DOI 2014 mitigation strategy update with the cat out of the bag on renewable energy in the bottom paragraph. The BLM is already applying an Ecosystem Services Framework for Land Use Planning. Shocker. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity lists how federal government agencies are implementing their ecosystem restoration, USFS page 76, EPA watersheds page 83, and USDA agriculture/livestock page 85.
The USDA, USFS, DOI, and BLM have been working on identifying the Columbia Basin ecosystem risks since 1997. 107 “layers” of information were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Throughout this document every map shows some type of ecosystem destruction, which means the only way to preserve or restore the basin is to control it. In 2003 these same agencies created a memorandum of understanding to “implement” the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, updated in 2014. The strategy? “A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation”. If the reader takes the time to read this document it becomes very apparent that there is no room for any human to use any of this land as it has to be protected or “restored” from human damage. Page 1 lists all the Idaho areas that will be affected. Ecosystems listed include landscape, habitat, forests, rangelands, riparian and other species, riparian areas, and Tribes.
Since 2002 more GIS and Spatial Data have been collected on the basin for the purpose of eventual full control through ecosystem management. Here are the 8 chapters of ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details, including topography, hydrologic, vegetation, landscape, grazing, watershed, riparian, rangeland, ecology, roads, habitat, species, timber, economy, population, and reservations, naming just a few. Now that all of this data has been collected and strategies developed prior to the 2014 renegotiation start date, let the two countries begin talks. And, because the U.S. Department of State has a specific mission to the UN, they support incorporating ecosystem management strategies into the treaty.
All groundwork has been completed to finalize the takeover of Idaho through a renegotiated treaty using ecosystem management.
United NationsAgenda 21, Chapter 15 and Agenda 2030, Goal 15 address the need for ecosystem protection and restoration. There is also the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (signed by the U.S. in 1993) which outlines targets for ecosystem management by 2020. Did you read that? 2020, 4 years from now. It would be fair to say they are on the last leg of getting it done. Let’s see what else UN wants for ecosystem management.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) envisions integrating ecosystem management into “ecosystem services“, providing “specialized expertise” for assessment, management, economics, and governance including international agreements, legislation, and policy. As part of the memorandum of understanding with UNEP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports ecosystem services along with multiple federal agencies promoting the same. UNEP also has several booklets on ecosystem management if you would like to know more.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has an agenda for ecosystem management and created the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 for countries to use as a guide. It can be downloaded to read. UNDP provides “technical and policy advice to governments” while promoting “Ecosystem-based Mitigation of & Adaptation to Climate Change”, currently being implemented by the DOI as previously noted. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), of which the DOI is a member, has a special Commission on Ecosystem Management, including a Red List of Ecosystems the DOI can use, plus a transboundary water assessment and management program.
Although not signed by the U.S. or Canada, the UN Watercourses Convention(UNWC) is recognized as the “most authoritative source of international water law”. The UNWC aims to be the global water instrument, the authoritative source of international water law, and create frameworks for water governance arrangements which includes transboundary water and ecosystem protection. If the U.S. signs this convention it will put the Columbia basin under further, and complete, UN rule.
The United States Entity, comprised of the BPA and the USACE, released a document, Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 on 12/13/13, meeting the UN regionalism goal. One noteworthy recommendation is on page 5, Ecosystem-based Function. This is a scheme concocted by the UN, justified by climate change scare tactics, and is really about taking final control over land, resources and humans. It is also called “Ecosystem-based Adaptation“, ecosystem based management, and can be separated out into different areas such as fisheries, mountains, and even disasters. This UNEP document gives a convoluted, scattered description of ecosystem based management on pages 4-5, almost as if they were trying to figure out how to justify a way to control everything. All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme (IHP) with one interesting function, “Recommending U.S. programs for participation in the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme.”, and there are several programs. What this means for the hydropower generated by Columbia River dams is uncertain. It is difficult to ascertain just how the Columbia River Basin became “international“. But, being designated as such, it places the basin under International Waters Governance, as part of the GEF International Waters Governance Project. GEF stands for Global Environment Facility, financed via UNEP. Regardless, it also involves Idaho dams, so it will affect us as well.
In the United Nations World Water Development Report 2016, everything you would want to know about how the UN will control our water is explained. On page 57-58 it describes changing our water use to a “green” economy which means industrializing our agriculture and urban water infrastructure as two examples, using UN business partnerships. This explains the Common Core emphasis on STEM and vocational education, preparing our children for the workforce needs of these industries. Pages 58-61 cover Agenda 2030 Goal 6 and related water goals. The UN will manage water through their Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRM), which the Idaho Water Resource Board follows. Transition to renewable energy investment starts on page 83, addressing hydropower and urban infrastructure, which is why the UN bank partners are buying water utilities in preparation for the takeover. The Idaho Department of Water Resources was given a special mention on this page also. Yes, the UN monitors U.S. and Idaho water. Ecosystems are covered from page 26-28.
The UN believes transboundary waters should be under international rule with focus on the “use, development, protection and conservation of water resources.” Since the Columbia Basin has somehow been declared international, it looks like the river is primed for UN take over.
Briefly on the social pillar. As previously posted in the December, 2015 archives on Tribes being used by the federal government to take land and water from American citizens, Tribal rights are not being ignored in the treaty negotiation, including IdahoTribes. Emphasis on salmon, tribal resources, and culture will be part of the talks, with full UN backing on Tribal water rights.
SummaryIf all of this gobbledegook has left you bored to tears or brain dead, there is a more simple explanation. The UN wants control of water, and they want it bad as water is the most valuable resource needed for everything.
The intent is expanding the treaty to include the full Columbia Basin, not just the original river. With ecosystem management, defined by the UN and implemented by their federal buddies, public land will not only be affected, but private land as well. The goal is taking basin water resources, from basin water drops to storage, then controlling its use in agriculture, industries, and urban infrastructure, among other uses. Forcing Idaho into a “green economy” means expensive technology will be needed for redesigning water use in all areas, and the federal government taking more land for their renewable energy projects. UN business partners, many of them banks, will be investing in this green technology while the federal government will ban land use and take private land away through regulations causing economic devastation, what they are doing to ranchers. Agricultural farmers will be next. Common Core will educate your child to those new industrial technology needs. The UN has multiple water partners supporting this agenda. Ecosystem data is made available to UN business partners so they can take advantage of energy projects once we are stripped of our land.
Idaho will soon die, there will be nothing left of our state. This will truly be the death of Idaho. The UN controls our forests, government agencies implement UN objectives on our land, our cities are being redesigned by the UN, we are being forced off our land into cities, children are being indoctrinated on UN ideology…there is nothing left but ecosystem management to finish us off. Our water will be taken and controlled, we will be told where and how we can enjoy the outdoors, if at all. Jobs will be determined by UN corporate industries. Yet Idahoans don’t listen, state legislators refuse to address this out of the fear it looks like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is right there in front of everyone. And we do nothing. Shame on us, shame on us.
We should be in the streets demanding our legislators remove us from every illegal, treasonous, unconstitutional regulation that each corrupt federal agency forces on us, and demand that there will be no implemented UN objective in our state. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs that if this is not done, we will remove each legislator, and keep going through them until we find one that has the courage, and the love of Idaho, to do as we tell them, not ask, tell them. When will we be ready and have the courage to do this? We have 4 short years, the UN has given us the year. When?
​

EXPOSING THE BLM

Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well.  Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.

Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use.  The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals.  Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call "corporate governance". 

One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.

The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America.  Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.
Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well.  Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.

Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use.  The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals.  Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call "corporate governance". 

One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.

The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America.  Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.

Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft.  Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies. 

                                                                                         Wilderness

According to the Idaho BLM site they control 12 million acres of land in Idaho, with 4,795,820 acres devoted to wilderness designation according to the Wilderness connect.  BLM wilderness area is "an area of public lands that Congress has designated for BLM to manage as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964."  Here is a map of BLM wilderness in Idaho.

For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM.  The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies believe grazing has been harmful to the land, which the BLM claims has lessened since they took control of it.  Their solutions have been to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use.  Bullcocky, the purpose is to remove humans from their land and take over the resources.  These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammondranch conflicts.

For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land.  Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video.  Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency.

Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through "Resource Management Plans".  As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan.  Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements!  The BLM is also obligated to "protect endangered species" such as the sage grouse.  These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilerness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the ruse is really to ban you from using the land.

It is well understood that wilderness and other "protected" areas are a focus of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a UN NGO and UNEP partner.  As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO).  The IUCN identifies national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves and protected areas.  But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes.

"In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre..." the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, for ..."inclusion into UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre's World Database for Protected Areas"  and "World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes linking the multiple parcels of a single protected area in PAD-US and connecting them to the Global Community."  Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land.  Anticipate more species needing protection from you.

Desertification will be the focus of Part 2.    


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&




Bureau of Land Management - Part 2
                                                                                                            Desertification

Desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word.  Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found.  The closest is the word desert, defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy.  One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda.  As noted in the Savory video in Part 1, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back.  As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction.  Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use?  Shouldn't this have lessened the problem?

As a United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) partner, the Department of Interior (DOI) created the The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI).  One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program.  And for all the BLM's alleged protection in the GBRI, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land.  Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it.  Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection.

Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems".  "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task.

Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000.  According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification.  By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them.  A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...food security, water scarcity, biodiversity, forest", and of course "gender", whatever that means.  The UNCCD is also very interested in renewable energy.  Solar and wind are two forms of renewable energy and all of that land with desertification problems is needed for renewable energy production, but there cannot be humans in the way.  Keep the renewable energy in mind.  The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries.   The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD.  One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8).  The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations.  That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything.

In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


 Bureau of Land Management - Part 3
                                                                                                  Ecosystems

Desertification isn't enough however, ecosystems are also a  a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use.  Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but originally the BLM defined it as ecosystem management which "...recognizes that natural systems and processes must be sustained in order to meet the social and economic needs of future generations."  Their goal was to "...to conserve, restore, and maintain ecological integrity, productivity and biological diversity of public lands."  What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present.  The only solution is to keep humans away.

Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection.  The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals."  Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way?

And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural (UNESCO) thinks all wetlands are being destroyed while the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) thinks wetlands should be honored in a World Wetlands Day.   UNEP believes wetlands are needed for the economy which makes sense as the UN goal is transforming us to a resource based, or green, economy.  The UN Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 lists 4 goals: drivers of wetland degradation, conserving the Ramsar network, wise use of wetlands, and enhancing implementation, with 19 targets while contributinge to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.  As a partner with this convention, the United States is implementing these goals.  In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources."  Water is what this about, all of these organizations want control of all water, and what better way than to encompass all water through ecosystems.

The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for more conservation and preservation of wetlands.  According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment.  Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states.  Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified. 

Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working."  Oh yeah?  How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with their habitat because of your strategies?  May the restrictions for human use end.

But federal government ecosystem "protection" will most likely expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private property.  The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010.  As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species.  As a IUCN  partner the DOI USFWS and other federal agencies follow these lists.

Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030.  "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...".  Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators.
                                 
Resource theft and conclusion in Part 4.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


Bureau of Land Management - Part 4


The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management.  Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".

And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.

GIS deserves an explanation.  It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data.  This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is captured, stored, manipulated, analyzed, and managed.  This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture.  As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS.  What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN.  See number 4 on page 4.  The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.

Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land?  Most BLM land is rich in resources.  Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized.  Renewable energy projects on BLM managed lands include wind, solar, oil, gas, coal, mining, helium, and geothermal projects.  Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it.  With the UN goal to take as much land away from us for its resources, while transforming us to a "green" economy, the BLM is assisting with this goal.  The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.

                                                                                                       Wind

Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects.  At this point Idaho does not require utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.

The BLM has contracted with Iberdrola.  Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies?  Aren't there any wind developers in the United States?  About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN.  It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects.  The BLM has ballooned so much they need an outside source, Ameresco,  to manage their finances.  According to their website, the BLM "generated $75 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2016."  What are they, a business or a government agency that is suppose to manage land?

While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some.  Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information.  Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property.  One such farm is in American Falls.  There are negative aspects to wind energy such as it being unreliable and very expensive.

                                                                                                     Solar

Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones.  Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury".  Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones. Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress.  And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there?  Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening.  Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLM ploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure.  Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone.  At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.

Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments?  Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner!  Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including nearing default on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds.  $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit.  Think Solyndra.  But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners like Morgan Stanley so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.

According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects.  And plans have been started to site "...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands."  Has anybody notified the cows?  Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.1 billion, that should hasten the job.

                                                                                                 Uranium

One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production.  Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable.  Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand.  This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects.  Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy.  This money is being stripped out of America.  It is no wonder America is dying.

Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011.  Page 4B of this USGS map shows "mineral resource potential" in Harney county, Oregon.  That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.

This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass Energy Projects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects.  At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on creating renewable energy zones with the Department of Energy. 

In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and re-mediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved.  It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20).  One more way to get you out of the way.

                                                                                   Renewable Energy Credits

This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt.  Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money.  Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production.  Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates.  This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting.  And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land.  A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.

                                                                                            Conclusion

Ok, now it makes sense.  The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships.  This can all be justified with saving the planet.  Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control.  It is all about taking and controlling resources.  Very simple.  A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress.  And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.

Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world?  How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now?  Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives.  It must be done now.