Wildlife overpasses are used as a tool to advance ENGO objectives for connectivity. This is how this scam works.
There are different types of corridors in the ENGO world. Varying greatly in size, shape, and composition, corridors can be described as routes or land tracts used by migrating animals, 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 ENGOs 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. Here are three types of corridors: Biodiversity corridors, Riparian corridors, and Wildlife corridors. 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. However, scientists believe anthropogentic activity is destroying natural corridors and corridors should be sewn together for connectivity, with no "disruption" or "barriers". ENGOs, scientists, and the government want us to believe they have the knowledge and authority to artificially engineer corridors. ENGOs believe corridors keep wildlife connected. Corridors and connectivity are the means to control land use. Once land is in their possession, regardless of being a corridor, CE, protected or restricted area, or any other designation, control of that land will be dictated by the government, NGOs, and land trust groups. One of the tools to artificially create a corridor is wildlife overpasses. Studies are typically done on migration routes and wildlife vehicle collisions, and usually in areas ENGOs want for their connectivity agenda. Wildlife overpasses require fencing for long stretches along a road in order to force wildlife to change their migration path and use the overpass. Because this results in an abundance of wildlife movement in that area, the next issue the ENGOs will want is to have that area declared a wildlife corridor. Also, because of that wildlife abundance, they will want the corridor area protected, which means no land use. No recreation or development because that is considered a disturbance to the wildlife. This patchwork of corridors advances their connectivity agenda between two unprotected areas. ENGOs considers unprotected land between protected land, such as a national park, as land that needs protection so it will then “connect” the land in between the two designated protected areas. This is their concocted notion of connectivity, but it is really about control over land use.\\ If an overpass is built, next ENGOs will want riparian and biodiversity corridors designated for the benefit of the wildlife migrating to the overpass. This means more land protection and non-use. ENGOs will accuse those who oppose wildlife overpasses of not caring about wildlife and put out pictures of dead animals on the road. The actual wildlife vehicle collision (WVC) numbers are artificially inflated. Exaggerations about the cost of WVC is also exaggerated. Using other alternatives to reduce WVC are never an option for them. Often times there is one species used as justification and if that doesn't work they will start throwing in other wildlife numbers. 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, and the connectivity agenda will be avoided and hidden. A broader discussion in solving WVC is needed with other solutions brought forth, including alternatives that haven't been given any consideration. One upcoming solution is already underway, vehicle technology that alerts the driver to an obstruction. Wildlife overpasses bring their own set of problems. There are also studies that have been conducted on the detrimental effects of wildlife overpasses. Because species are crowded into a artificially designed landscape it is often an invitation for invasive species, whether plant or animal, and increased predator behavior. 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. They don't care about the Elk, they are only interested in using them to take land for their agenda. If ENGOs push forward with this agenda for wildlife overpasses, start checking their sources and data on the number of WVC, the actual cost of collisions that do occur, and expose their true hidden agenda for corridors and connectivity. Look on a map and locate which two protected areas that are using for connectivity. Bring that out in your exposure. Go to ENGO websites and locate the information they post on wildlife overpasses, corridors, and connectivity, then educate others. With new car technology there is no reason for these monstrosities that tear up and disrupt the natural beauty of the land. Remember, it is all about control over land use.
0 Comments
Agenda 21 Continues to Drive People From The Land - Jane Gaffin Under the United Nations’ Agenda 21 –– a blueprint as to how society will live and behave in the 21st Century — the main thrust is to return all privately-owned property back to a strictly government-controlled domain. As per the Marxist doctrine, Agenda 21 doesn’t recognize privately-owned property that represents the cornerstone of all free societies. America’s 50 states are being carved into 12 land-planning regions in anticipation of the forthcoming North American Union of which Canada and Mexico are part of the “three amigo partnership”. “Partnership” is a keyword that denotes Agenda 21. Canada is under regional land-planning concepts that link one province’s land to another under the guise of environmentalism. One land-planning fiasco is Alberta’s Land Stewardship Act which was drafted and passed behind closed doors by Premier Ed Stelmach’s Conservative cabinet in 2010. “Stewardship” is the keyword that indicates the Land Stewardship Act is a product of the UN’s Agenda 21. Also, under Agenda 21, “meat-eating” is not considered “sustainable” which translates into the elimination of all livestock raised for food consumption. Unbelievably, the proposed legislation was never brought to the floor of the Alberta legislature for debate. Therefore, opposition members, press, general public, lawyers and, most importantly, landowner associations’ members and their executive directors, who never miss a trick, knew nothing about this land-grabbing Land Stewardship Act for a year. For good reason, Albertans were in an uproar over this draconian law that dictates exactly what landowners can and cannot do with their land. If the fines and fees don’t do them in, the clincher is that regulators can expropriate land without compensation and the landowners are not allowed legal redress to defend themselves with due process before a court of law. If the Alberta government was so proud of this act that Conservative politicians claimed would better protect the rights of land owners why was it not debated in the public legislative forum as per proper parliamentary rules instead of the bill passed behind closed doors cloak-and-dagger style? Alison Redford, a lawyer steeped in the United Nations doctrine, no doubt was elected to replace Ed Stelmach as leader of the Progressive Conservative Association in October 2011 because of a promise to rescind the Land Stewardship Act. As the interim premier, she dispatched a dog-and-pony show to go around the province consulting with angry and frightened Albertans who had plenty to say. “Public consultation” is another meaningless catch-all phrase that comes from the UN’s Agenda 21. It is cleverly designed to look like people are given a chance to provide input when in fact they are not. The decision is predetermined. Delphication is the name of the game that government reps perform on a crowd that has gathered to give opinions. These tales told by idiots spouting sound and fury but signifying nothing is a long-time Rand Corporation mind-control technique that bureaucrats and politicians use during virtually every government meeting attended by unsuspecting public participants. In other words, the members of public are “being had”. They are merely window dressing in this illusionary process in which the governments’ plans are pre-designed and pre-approved. It’s happened time after time in the Yukon, especially apparent in protracted meetings concerning federal firearms Bill C-68, Development Assessment Process and hard-rock and placer mining regulations. This is exactly what happened in Alberta. The unelected, UN-trained Premier Redford didn’t have any intentions of rescinding the Land Stewardship Act before unleashing her dog-and-pony show on Albertans. And the act didn’t have a hoot in Hades of being overturned when Albertans were strangely inclined to return the long-standing Alberta Conservatives of 43 years to power on April 23, 2012, despite polls and pundits predicting a landslide victory for the Wildrose Alliance Party. (Redford announced her premature resignation as premier on March 19, 2014). Although the so-called environmental movement is still in full cry, the UN’s Agenda 21 has nothing to do with a cleaner, healthier environment and lifestyle; Agenda 21 is all about totalitarianism, as is very plain as one piece of unconstitutional legislation after another is passed into Canadian law. The three main factions in dispute are the “radical”, “religious” and the “rational”. But the “rational” can never trump the “radical” unless they learn the rules of the game. As the bar is raised on environmental lunacy — on which most public policy and laws are based — it has become exceedingly difficult for rational environmentalists and conservationist, who truly care about and know how to manage their land, to be heard. Environmentalism became a huge growth industry fueled by the enormous wealth accumulated over the last 50 years, largely by people previously engaged in natural-resource industries. Now the guilt-ridden rich pretend to atone for their “eco-sins” by donating wads of cash toward any and ever “Earth-Saving” crusade. National environmental organizations, born in the United Nations and nurtured mainly via the United States, have grown into giant corporations structured like the big industrial multinationals the greens love to hate. More than a Green Machine, the environmental organizations have turned into a Greenback Machine. They have even joined the big boys down on Wall Street, which environmentalists have always viewed as a vile, artificial mechanism for greedy corporations to raise capital to run earh-destroying projects. To break the back of the United States, viewed as the last bastion of freedom standing in the way of global reform, the socialists, fascists, Marxists, Communists, environmentalists, Evil Eye — whatever you want to call them — have to dismantle Wall Street and devalue the American dollar against which ever other currency in the world is pegged. Maybe their self-proclaimed mandate to dismantle the ancient financial institution is because Green Clubbers are poor sports about losing. More than one outfit has watched in astonishment as their multimillions from donors evaporated into an ozone hole after a short-sell went sour or an attempt to outwit the futures market failed. Easy come, easy go. There’s more where that money came from. Just dream up another “Earth-Saving” scheme and presto! Funding is readily available. A career in environmentalism can be financially rewarding. Reports show chief executive officers drawing annual base paycheques of more than $200,000 U.S. plus bonuses, perks and bribes add up to more than Canada’s prime minister’s annual base salary of $317,574 Canadian. But a career with a U.S.-rooted environmental organization, which oozes out into the whole world, comes with a price tag. Joiners must park their ethics, integrity, scruples and morals at the door before entering — if indeed these fatuous youth’s characters were ever blessed with those virtues, anyway. The environmental movement is a secular religion. Anybody who chooses to become a card-carrying member of any of the more than 8,000 Green Clubs and another 40,000 to a million worldwide non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which are ironically government-funded, have to accept the doctrine and preach the gospel. The sermon is about crisis and Armageddon, hype and hyperbole. The ultimate goal is to render humanity naked, hungry and dead as a sacrifice to Mother Earth — otherwise known as Gaia meaning “She Who Must Be Obeyed”. She is the goddess destined to be the centerpiece of Agenda 212’s One-World Religion. The first step to achieving the wonky Earth-Saving goal means eliminating human activity from all land. The idea was spawned from a vision to convert half the land in North America into core wilderness reserves immediately — the other half later. “Later” is here, folks. The Wildlands Project was actually a brainchild of PhD biologist Reed Noss under auspices of the very wealthy Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, both keywords of the UN’s Agenda 21. The plan was taken to the next level some 20 years ago by Dave Foreman, who used his one-time aspirations to be a preacher to co-found a radical, fanatical environmental group called Earth First! (Exclamation mark is part of the title.) Radical environmentalists worship Foreman as some sort of an out-of-balance folk hero. The group adopted the belief that all decisions had to place Earth First! — even ahead of humanity’s well-being and even if it spelled human extinction. “If you’ll give the idea a chance,” Foreman once wrote in his own Wild Earth magazine, “you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions of other Earth-dwelling species.” To place fruit flies and lower species above importance of humans is pure Marxism and one that Canadian “scientist” David Suzuki extols. But Foreman’s perverse Earth First! Wilderness Preserve Plan of the 1980s decided it was not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country that remained. The Greens must re-create wilderness in large regions by moving out the cars and civilized people, dismantling the roads and dams, reclaiming the plowed land and clearcuts and reintroducing extirpated species. All these plans are contained in the UN’s Agenda 21 that deems individually-owned vehicles “unsustainable”. In 1992, Foreman revamped the program into the Wildlands Project — another UN Agenda 21 term — to carry out a continental wilderness recovery of North America. John Davis, as editor of Foreman’s Wild Earth magazine, once wrote: “Does…the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization?” he asked. “Most assuredly.” Foreman himself wrote: “(The Wildlands Project) is a bold attempt to grope our way back to October 1492, and find a different trail…Local and regional reserve systems linked to others ultimately tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Preserve.” “Biodiversity” is another UN Agenda 21 buzzword. One of these continental-land links is the Yellowstone-to-Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y, in shortwrite) for which the NDP (New Democratic Party) government under Ujjal Dosanjh’s watch generously donated an immense amount of British Columbia land for “the cause”. All UN Agenda 21 groups are intertwined like the snakes in Medusa’s hairdo. The Wildlands Project was anointed by the United Nations Environment Program, which was founded by Maurice Strong, the-then Geneva-based senior advisor to the United Nations and World Bank. The Canadian-born prophet of doom and friend of high-profile Canadian politicians, a land baron who made his multimillions selling oil as chair of Petro Canada, was once one of the most influential persons on the planet. He remains influential in his work to replace the United States superpower with China and to bring in a one-world government . Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has started referring to under the disguise of a “New Modern Order”, which promises to end in a “Modern Totalitarian Disorder”. At one time, Strong and his hypocritical cronies had an invisible grip over every aspect of everybody’s life without them knowing it. He authorized the vision for a Wildlands Project to be published in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, a massive parent document which provides guidance for every little community spinoff publication. The Global Biodiversity Assessment describes how biodiversity should be preserved under the UN Convention. In Section 13, the Wildlands Project is named specifically as a key feature to successful implementation of booting people off their land. The Wildlands Project was introduced in 1992 — the same year Maurice Strong chaired Earth Summit II in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where the kooky blueprint for the 21st Century, Agenda 21, was born, although conceived many decades previously. Sane people did not pay much heed. They didn’t believe the off-the-wall plot, which sounded like it was cobbled together by a bunch of dysfunctional sci-fi madmen, had a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding. While the Democratic Clinton administration was in the White House (1993 to 2001) — and it has worsened with the Democratic Obama administration (2009 to present) — every real and fabricated rule, regulation, illegal law and Executive Order — such as the one President Clinton signed in 1993 creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development — was used to prevent people from using public land under Agenda 21’s “travel plans” and dictated what owners could and couldn’t do with their privately-owned land. The screws tightened in 2011 when de facto U.S. President Obama formed the menacing White House Rural Council with nothing more than a stroke of his pen. There has been — and continues to be — a litany of tragic blows dealt to a myriad of true conservationists who love and care about their land which they depend on to return bountiful rewards of food and other resources to sustain life. Farmers, ranchers and resource developers even sustain life for those nutbar Green Clubbers and politicians who thwart the landowners’ ever effort. Agenda 21’s plans are to force all rural residents off their land into high-density ghettos comprised of ugly, cinder-block, high-rise apartment houses. Stack’em, pack’em and rack’em. “The Y2Y project envisions wilderness from Yellowstone to the Yukon, and the Cascadia Bioregion vision adds the forests and river bottoms from Washington to northern California — including the Klamath Basin (in Oregon),” wrote the late Henry Lamb, who founded the Environmental Conservation Organization as a mechanism for providing truth about the green movement. In his 2001 piece called “Tightening the Screws”, Lamb continued: “All across the land, policies and programs are being implemented that have the effect of forcing people off their rural land — to achieve some imagined environmental benefit.” Lamb’s words also pertain directly to what is happening on public and private land across Canada. If farmers can’t get water, they can’t farm. “Sympathy will be dispensed, and tax dollars offered,” predicted Lamb. “But in the end…if they can’t farm, they must leave the land.” That’s the whole idea behind the Master Plan. In this specific economic hardship incident, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service decided three suckers and a coho salmon — or some equally perverse numbers — needed the water more than the farmers, as though they can’t share. Lamb challenged people to question any politician or federal officer what the Klamath water decisions regarding the basin located in southern Oregon and northern California had to do with the Wildlife Projects. They will reply, “Nothing!” because most of them believe their own words. Some field officers of federal agencies are just following orders, Lamb advised. However, their bosses were selected by the president/vice-president team of Bill Clinton and Al Gore who appointed them directly from the very environmental organizations that dreamed up and promoted the Wildlands Project. Many of the second- and third-tier officials remained throughout subsequent White House administrations. Elected officials refuse to listen to any mention about United Nations land grabs, even though it is spelled in document after document. And the snail pace of Dave Foreman’s vision is creeping to fruition — project by project, policy by policy, rule by rule, law by law. The United States and Canada, specifically in the northern territories, are being transformed into Foreman’s bizarre vision, which is the objective spelled out in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. “It is a sad day in the United States when the government officially places the value of a sucker fish above the needs of its citizens,” lamented Lamb. Although the Convention of Biological Diversity does not appear to have been signed by the U.S. or Canada, the drive to force people from the land continues. And the U.S. and Canada have signed onto a bunch of other dangerous, non-legal-binding resolutions and agreements. Much of the power is held by foundations and corporate-funded environmental organizations. And most assuredly, they have tightened the screws on the bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa with perks and bribes which renders the small Canadian population particularly vulnerable to these minority crazies. Why does the affected citizenry continue to allow it? Evidently the masses are asleep at the switch, not feeling the pinch yet, and holding no empathy for those who are. Below is the URL for an insightful Liberty Northwest News presentation titled The Systematic Elimination of Private Property, in which New Mexico rancher Wayne Price provides testimony to the abuses he and other ranchers have suffered over the last many years at the hands of the UN Agenda 21 land-grab movement and the government minions who bear no qualms about carrying out the orders. Please take 18.5 minutes out of your life to listen to this man of the land who has lived this nightmare. You will learn more than you want to know. "Sue and Settle: How to Force Regulatory Action By Using The Court System; Similarities Across Borders"
Knowing how closely intertwined Y2Y, CPAWS, other ENGO's are to our Provincial and Federal Environment Ministers, it is rather strange that CPAWS would sue the Federal Environment Minister. Is the public really to believe this was not some ploy to justify action on this agenda? Is this a classic case of bait and switch, or like our friends in the US have reported "sue and settle". Here is how this case played out: CPAWS sues Federal Environment Minister, gives ultimatum to Federal Environment Minister, then DROPS LAWSUIT!!!!!!! Who pays the costs of these shenanigans? Is it the taxpayer that defends the CPAWS suit? I wonder what would happen if OUR Environment Minister was sued for allegations of illegal activity? Lawsuits are not uncommon to CPAWS it seems. Back in 1998 this was an increasing occurrence for CPAWS. It would be interesting to know how much of their activity and budget is allocated to these types of political activities. Check this out from Public Policy Sources. “Never in CPAWS’ history have we fielded so many lawsuits, and we see no end in sight.” Y2Y also joins the party. Not happy with a government decision? Pressure and sue the government to respond. It would be interesting to see how much of these grants from outside of Canada go toward lawsuits. Pay attention Yukon and BC, the Peel and this are two examples in YOUR back yard. https://y2y.net/…/s-80-…/@@download/file/S.80%20LPU%203A.pdf Don't think for a second this just applies to the mining, forestry and species protection fields. They even appear to target developers trying to invest in local economies. Check out this story from a developer in Canmore where the AEP rejects the proposal, and has Y2Y applauding the decision. Knowing what you now know from reading our posts so far, do you really think this is not the result of direct political lobbying? Isn't Y2Y a charity? Or did they end up registering as a lobbyist? Aren't there rules on 10% of activity of charities being dedicate to political lobbying? Where is the other 90% of activity? It seems like a heck of a lot of lobbying. Perhaps the media coverage and lawsuits are a big proportion of this? What about their stewardship initiatives? Many of our followers have argued that CRA should definitely be taking a closer look into this. If this is your position, here is the procedure, where you can add links to any information supporting your concerns: If you have concerns with any of these activities, you can express them to the Ethics Commissioner: Office of the Ethics Commissioner Suite 1250, 9925 - 109 Street NW Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2J8 Telephone Number: (780) 422-2273 Fax Number: (780) 422-2261 E-mail Address: [email protected] Now what about our earlier point on the American struggle? From our grassroots citizens in the USA who are reporting astounding parallels to their land management policy concerns: Here in the US the same problem exists, the NGO files a lawsuit and the govt settles it without ever going to court. It is called sue and settle. The goal, create regulatory changes without going through congressional approval. Is this what happened with CPAWS suit? It appears as though they were able to force the govt into creating a regulatory rule without proper govt procedure for rulemaking. Notice also it is about land use regulation, which one article stated was voluntary at this point but now it is one step closer to forced regulatory land use practices, and of course the phony protection of a habitat. In 2009 Harvey Locke wrote a piece titled, "Civil Society and Protected Areas:Lessons from Canada’s Experience". Here is a highlight from his article. Mr. Locke is a Program Advisor to Tides Canada.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals. Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel. The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use. Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types. The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention. If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land. WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening. Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030. Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint. If there is any question about what ENGOs want here is the answer. It is all about control over people. A previous article covered community based tourism (CBT). While it didn't seem to capture anyone's fancy, the Castle Crown Wilderness Coalition (CCWC) has provided a very clear picture of what it is.
CCWC released their 2019 Summer Stewardship Schedule, described as "educational and recreational" and "hosted by local experts and promote conservation". Of course you also have to register so they have your information. This fits the long term scam they are running for taking over land use. They will dictate how we can use an area while at the same time they will be "teaching" us their perspective on proper use. It makes one want to gag. Because ENGOs are notorious for removing information and links, the information is partially listed below to bring out the highlights of their agenda. And in true technocratic fashion, precise information on elevation, time of activity, and difficulty of the activity is provided for you. Like, whoever does any of this when they go recreate? Guaranteed, all of the "leaders" of these activities are "experts". Your enjoyment is restricted to only what they want you to see with a guide to monitor you while filling your head with propaganda, and your choice of how you get to the area is limited to hiking or biking. But the choice activities you get to pay for is viewing, cleaning up trash, taking pictures, and pulling weeds so don't forget to bring your own hand tool. A reward of dipping into one selected spot in a river and "treats" are provided on two activities, No more cooking your hamburgers, roasting that hot dog over the fire, or having those gooey toasted marshmallows, you no longer have the right to feed yourself what you want. For those true greenies, there is one activity on yoga. Ugh. Give me that OHV. Nobody in their right mind can possibly think this is ok except for those who practice environmentalism like a religion. I want my freedom. Do: Bring water and food for the day. Pack appropriate clothing for changing mountain weather; hat, rain gear, gloves. Wear appropriate/sturdy footwear. Bring walking poles if you prefer. Pack bear spray. Take great pictures. Bring a bike if it is requested. Don’t: Bring dogs or other pets. Remove rocks, flowers, or other beautiful finds from the area. Download the 2019 CCWC Summer Stewardship Schedule. Activity Schedule May 26 – Table Mountain (2230m) Start out in a cool aspen forest, eventually reaching a gully where the climb begins. From an ascent up the south facing slope, the trail takes you to the plateau with amazing views. The summit requires a bit more hiking but it is worthwhile! Elevation gain: 810 m Time/distance: 4.5 hrs/5 km (one way) Rating: moderate to difficult June 22 – Carbondale Ridge (not the lookout!)New in 2019! Grassland hike to Carbondale Ridge above Castle Falls. Enjoy a hike and end your day with a jump into the Castle River. Elevation gain: 810 m Time/distance: 4 hrs/8 km (round trip) Rating: moderate June 30 – Yarrow Basin (2005 m)New Hike for 2019! Mount Yarrow is an unofficial peak on the southeast end of Spread Eagle. The beautiful valley along Yarrow Creek is filled with meadows, waterfalls, wild flowers and plenty of wildlife. Elevation gain: approx. 1000 m Time/distance: All day/24km (return) Rating: moderate to difficult + bike July 7 – Barnaby Ridge, east end (2471 m) Led by a Castle Parks Interpreter, this hike has an amazing panorama across the West Castle Valley and offers rewards of lakes, larches and views! Expect a chilly (or refreshing) river crossing above knee height and a lot of elevation gain/loss. Elevation gain: 1000 m Time/distance: 5 hrs/8 km (one way) Rating: moderate to difficult July 10 – Minimum Security Camp Weed Pull This is the 4th year that CCWC supporters will help reclaim this area. Please join us to pull some weeds, have fun and meet other people interested in removing invasive species from the area. July 13 – Blind Canyon Basin The trail into Blind Canyon starts at the Yarrow Creek staging area. Hike to the Roy Marshall and Bertha Echland homestead along the Blind Canyon creek. Elevation gain: 700 m Time: 6 hrs (return) Rating: moderate to difficult July 17 – Paradise Lake Moderate mid-week hike into Castle Wildland Park for the family. Elevation gain: 435 m Time/distance: 2.5 hrs/4.5 km (one way) Rating: moderate July 20 – Drywood Mountain (west summit)/Bovin Lake (2514 m) Bikes will be used for the first 4 km followed by a 2-hour hike to Bovin Lake. From the lake, those feeling energetic can scramble up the south slopes of Drywood and to the west summit. Elevation gain: 840 m to west summit Time/distance: 6 -9 hrs/18 km Rating: difficult to strenuous/scramble + bike July 22 – 12th Annual West Castle Wetlands Ecological Reserve Weed Pull Bring a digging tool, insect repellent, water and lunch. Many hands make light work. Meet at the Castle Mountain Resort parking lot at 9:30 am and stay for treats after! July 28 – Victoria Mountain (2569 m) Bike into Whitney Canyon and hike along an old horse trail. The summit (the highest peak on the Front Range) on this scramble will leave you breathless with magnificent views of Castle Peak to the west, and many peaks into the Waterton area. Elevation gain: 1,100 m Time/distance: All day/20+ km (return) Rating: moderate to difficult + bike August 10 – South Fork Lakes (2040 m) Ford the West Castle River through knee-deep water. Bring water shoes to cross in. Explore the three South Fork Lakes, enjoy stromatolites, larch covered slopes and vista views. Optional scramble up Barnaby Ridge (extra 225m elevation). Elevation gain: 630 m Time/distance: 2.5 hrs/3.8 km to first lake (7 hours round trip) Rating: moderate to difficult August 12 – Front Canyon Reclamation Hike and Weed Pull – Blind Canyon In conjunction with the Nature Conservancy of Canada we will, for a fourth year, complete a weed pull at the old farm site in the canyon. There will be a moderate hike of about 1.5 hours into the site. Packhorses will assist in removal of the weeds. Please bring a hand digging tool and pruners for the burdock. August 17 – Rainy Ridge/Middlepass Lakes (2429 m) From Castle Mountain Ski Resort we will bike approximately 4 km, then hike several kilometers to Middle Kootenay Pass. At the Pass, it is a moderate scramble along the west ridge of Rainy, essentially following the Continental Divide to the summit. Scree slopes will take us down into BC to the larch covered shores of Middlepass Lakes. Elevation gain: 1000 m Time/distance: full day/25 km Rating: difficult to strenuous/scramble + bike August 19 – Sartoris Road Weed Pull This is a great way to educate yourself on the invasive plants of southwest Alberta. CCWC will be removing invasive species from the Sartoris Road area and many hands make light work! If you are a Geo-casher, there is one in this area to find. We will be working along Lynx and George Creeks and the main Sartoris road. Bring a lunch, drinking water, sun screen and insect repellent. August 25 – Bovin (Blue) Lake Bovin Lake (or Blue Lake) is at the head of South Drywood Creek. Bike on a gravel road to the trailhead and then hike along an old reclaimed road to the lake, approximately 3 hours one way to the lake area. If time and energy permits, hikers could go up to the ridge that looks into the South Castle Valley. Elevation gain: 430 m Time/distance: 8 hrs/15km (return) Rating: moderate to difficult + bike August 26 – West Castle Valley Weed PullNew in 2019! This reclamation work takes place at the site of an old sawmill site that is in a big open meadow with the West Castle River running through it. The valley was heavily logged 30 years ago and invasive plants were brought in with the increased traffic and on equipment. You have the option to bike a short distance into the site. September 9 – Annual Great Shoreline Clean-Up Our efforts for the Great Shoreline Clean-Up are focused on the Beaver Mines Lake. Join us as we remove trash from the lake’s shores, identify the sources of debris, and discuss ways to change the behaviors that cause people to leave this debris. September 12 – Suicide Creek Tarn – Yoga Hike Join Karla Breeze of Shanti Hollow Yoga and Retreat for a hike infused with yoga! This is a moderate hike with stops in an open meadow and on the Continental Divide! The yoga is for all levels and might be a nice way to introduce you to this practice. Elevation gain: 450 m Time/distance: 2.5 hrs/4 km (one way) Rating: moderate September 22 – Whistler Lookout (2,210 m)New in 2019! This trail winds up and eventually opens up to beautiful views to the west. You’ll visit the Lookout site on the ridge! Elevation gain: 750 m Time/distance: Full day/15km (return) Rating: moderate to difficult Both foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGO/ENGO) are pushing forward with new strategies. As much as possible, everyone needs to stay on top of their new direction. What had been more of a laid back, nobody challenges us attitude, has now become more of an offense because of the challenges laid at their feet by both Canadians and Americans, and they are proceeding with more deceit and lies. Slowly, members of NGOs and ENGOs have been slipping themselves into governments, getting themselves elected, in order to influence policy. This is happening in both Canada and the U.S.. In every election, detailed scrutiny of each candidate must be conducted for any involvement in NGOs and ENGOs, and exposed to the public. There has also been a massive commitment from multiple foundations to increase the amount of funding to these groups, the sole purpose is only taking land away from citizens, and only to have it placed in protection with non-use. Never doubt that. The amount of land they now want to take, originally around 20-30%, is now 50%, and that includes a combined takeover of both Canada and the U.S.. This agenda comes from the International Union of Conservation for Nature (IUCN) and was promoted by Harvey Locke, one of Yellowstone to Yukon founders. On this website, Nature Needs Half, you can find areas they want to take in Canada and the U.S., and Y2Y is involved with both objectives. The International Union of Conservation for Nature, Harvey Locke, Foundation Earth, and Wild Foundation are on the steering committee, while Gary Tabor from the Center for Large Landscape Conservation is one of the advisors. The Hewlett Foundation outlines the new strategies pretty well, the same strategies can be found in new NGO and ENGO jibberish, and they are implementing those strategies. Hewlett identified oil and gas development near wildlife corridors and protected areas, water scarcity, residential development, agriculture, insufficient funding for conservation, and lack of constituencies for conservation as some of the risks to ecosystems. They find gains have been less than what was expected, and progress halted, undone, or threatened with reversal. This is the background for their new strategies. Their focus has now changed to public policy as primary for advancing their outcomes. Therefore, they intend to focus on "community-driven, collaborative" solutions, which means getting more people to join their bandwagon, rather than "securing federal public land policy and protections" which is what they have been trying, instead going after state and local policies. Funding for this agenda have already begun, "building capacity" is what they call it. NGO/ENGO work was acknowledged with conserving 198 million acres since 2013. But for them it wasn't enough. So, now the focus will be partnerships with Tribes/First Nations and rural communities. "Conserving working lands" means duping land owners into engaging with them and adopting their sick forms of land management practices. Another tactic will be targeting local land-use planning, and securing new policies at a local level. For every local government, they will be knocking at your door to get new laws in place for their objectives. A new phony ploy will be tried, called Rural Perspectives on Western Conservation, they will pretend to listen to you, falsely giving a perception of interest, using the Jemez principle to manipulate you. Notice this is more reflective of a democracy, to "change from operating on the mode of individualism to community-centeredness." Collectivism, how Communistic is that? All efforts to place land into protection will continue as this new ploy is implemented. New efforts will be targeting state policies in the U.S., an agenda already started by the Network For Landscape Conservation. Funding for this agenda has already started pouring in. Building and enhancing collaboration and strengthening partnerships will be a new focus as well, but how can this be strengthened when they are already one with governments that will achieve policy changes? At least this is the case in the U.S.. Supporting civil litigation doesn't seem to be a immoral activity for them either. Starting on page 15 are focal areas for Canada and the U.S.. Anyone who lives in those areas should take note, keep an eye out for these new tactics. Don't be fooled by them, it is a mind game they intend to play on you. The wealthy seem to have the belief they are the ones who should own the world, using their money to fund non-governmental organizations (NGO/ENGO) who hold the same belief. Here is a recent report on who Wilburforce funded. This is just for 2019, previous years are also listed.
Canada - British Columbia Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition Northwest BC Ecosystem Conservation $90,000.00 Tides Center Rivers Without Borders: $80,000.00 Taku/Transboundary Watershed Conservation Campaign Trout Unlimited TU Alaska: Transboundary Protection Campaign $100,000.00 Trustees for Alaska Protecting Arctic Ecosystems, Special Places, $50,000.00 and Wildlife Wilderness Society Western Arctic Projects $80,000.00 WildLandscapes International Alaska Conservation, Connectivity, $130,000.00 and Constituents Wildlife Conservation Society $100,000.00 Wild Salmon Center SkeenaWild Conservation Trust: $115,000.00 Skeena Watershed Conservation New Venture Fund Alaska Engagement Partnership $60,000.00 Wildsight (Y2Y) Rocky and Columbia Mountain Corridors $100,000.00 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society BC Conservation Opportunities $90,000.00 Canada - Alberta Miistakis Institute for the Rockies (Y2Y) Connectivity along Highway 3 in SW Alberta $30,000.00 US - Idaho Conservation Voters-Idaho Education Fund $35,000.00 Greater Yellowstone Coalition Wildlife and Habitat Protection in the High Divide $100,000.00 Future West (Y2Y) Protecting Landscapes and Building Conservation $45,000.00 Capacity in the High Divide Wildlife Conservation Society (Y2Y) Sustaining Wildlife Habitat/Linkages in Y2Y Region $65,000.00 US - Y2Y Project Implementation and Organizational Capacity Support $275,000.00 Many questions have arisen about the Bighorn park proposal and the impact it will have on tourism and local businesses and livelihoods. The announcement by Shannon Phillips that $40 million dollars would be invested into the newly protected area for infrastructure and development was disguised as something positive. But there is a background she isn't telling you, just where the idea for this "provincial" park came from, and what the infrastructure development really means. Technocrats, those who are driven to have scientific control over society, are working hard to ultimately design how we recreate, known as Community Based Tourism (CBT). In their quest for ultimate control, they are determined to design the area where we recreate, dictate how we mange our businesses and behave as tourists, and decide how we are allowed to enjoy ourselves. In usual technocratic fashion, definitions of tourism are broken down into microscopic details of data. One shouldn't be allowed to just go someplace and enjoy themselves. Ecotourism is "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education" of tourists. This is seen as different from other screwball tourism categories they have created such as responsible, sustainable, or even green tourism. All of these over analyzed definitions of people going somewhere to freely enjoy themselves will just be listed here as Sustainable Tourism (ST). ST has some set criteria that includes consideration for environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts, and sustainable management of the tourist destination, all of which are essentially the same as other definitions. These criteria determine how you are allowed to use land, where, and the way in which you should behave. As technocrats, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) is part of this agenda and have been very secretive about this longer term plan for CBT, usually referring to it vaguely as a form of economic development or diversity. While working hard to place as much land as possible into protection between existing protected areas (PA) for their connectivity agenda, such as the Bighorn between Banff and Jasper, the end goal is dictating how that land should be designed and used as a tourist. While this Y2Y link to a conference does not work, it does state the conference includes presentations on "ecosystem economics and tourism", and is appropriately named "Tracking the Human Footprint". This is CBT and there are now degrees that can be earned in this field. As usual with technocrats, everything has to be broken down into precise categories for scientific measure. For PA tourism, CBT includes the ST concept but in true technocratic fashion, the criteria are even more precisely defined. Increasing the amount of PAs is essential for CBT implementation, and is a driving factor behind the urgency by Y2Y and their partner non-governmental organizations (NGO) to get as much land as possible into protection. Because the list of technocratic CBT requirements is so exhaustive, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provides the best guide for now. This particular document is also important because Y2Y is an IUCN member, just type their full name in the search box, and Y2Y founder, Harvey Locke, is also a member, working hard to implement IUCN objectives. The IUCN is an active partner of the United Nations (UN). It is a falsehood for any Y2Y member to say there is no connection to the UN as Jody Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, stated at the 31:20 mark in this video. While claiming the population has doubled, Ms. Hilty doesn't believe anyone has the right to freedoms as she condescendingly mocks those who do at the 26:10 mark. Doubled in what time frame Ms. Hilty, and is it not rather pompous to presume that this alleged double population will descend on what you believe is land that should never be used? Folks, this is the technocratic arrogance we are dealing with. Ms. Hilty herself references the IUCN PA agenda in the video. In a 2014 study, Ms. Hilty even scrutinized local land use ordinances for "conservation design" in protected areas, advocating for development that "requires a portion of a residential property to be set aside for conservation" with "smaller lots...clustered together, allowing for open space and biological resources to be permanently protected", having full intentions of targeting local governments for inclusion of these objectives into land use policies. There are Y2Y and other NGO members who carry out these tasks, targeting local governments. In the IUCN Tourism and visitor management in protected areas Guidelines for sustainability document, all aspects of controlling tourism in PAs is covered. IUCN and others believe tourism has a negative impact on the environment and especially on PAs such as parks and wilderness areas. As more areas are placed into protective status, there will be more regulated use, at least that is the plan. Regulated use considers conservation of the area, economical and social factors, and cultural aspects with guidelines broken down into miniscule details. While this document may seem overwhelming and of not much interest, it should be at least scanned through to understand, and prepare for, the future of what Y2Y and others want to do. Being aware of this regulatory control agenda will assist everyone in recognizing it when attempts are made to integrate the objectives into local land use policies. There are some basic elements to Protected Area Tourism. Some of those elements include programs that educate the the tourist on conservation practices and the importance of PA conservation. Guided tours, campfire talks, and friendly reminders located around the area are just a few traps for education. The intent is influencing both tourist businesses and visitor behavior. These ideologues believe CBT is an economic benefit with increased number of jobs while charging fees for visiting a PA. Also within this fatuous idea is the belief that living standards will increase, cultures will be appreciated more, and mental health will improve, but not without the dichotomy of concerns over "psychological" stress to wildlife and environmental damage from tourism. As a result, there must be management objectives because of these impacts. Tourism must align with conservation objectives which leads to strict control over land use and the way in which one behaves and visits the area. There should also be a "commercialisation (sic) manual", dictating how businesses are managed, some of which includes adopting "an ecosystem-based approach in tourism development" and designing and adopting "nature-based solutions". For businesses that currently exist, the plan includes educating them on the proper way to conduct their business. With their "Visitor Management Framework", recommendations include putting "hard limits (up to and including bans) on problematic visitor uses" through zoning, rationing, and enforcement. Other management methods involve increasing surveillance, limiting activity to bike only zones or hiker only days, prohibiting motor use, limiting campsite designation, length of stays, access points, and size of groups; restrictions on campfires, fishing, and hunting; requiring visitors to hire guides; and imposing fines. In the never ending endeavor for control, requiring tourist proof of ecological knowledge and recreational activity skills is even listed. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) prepared a report for IUCN which has a special tools section for visitor management which IUCN advocates. The Leave No Trace NGO runs this campaign in partnership with Parks Canada, true technocratic dictatorship to change your behavior. Certification as a tourist and especially as a business is seen as needed for "conformity to a set of standards, including specific sustainability targets", which they see as a possible "marketing tool" to attract tourists, a way in which to influence behavior, duping people to believe that all of this control over what we do and how we behave is good. An ominous subject is "buffer zones". These are communities just outside of protected areas, often referred to as failures, in spite of the fact that communities which lie near PAs have been successfully managed by locals and families for generations. Another term for these buffer zones is gateway communities. Because of the erroneous belief that these communities don't know what they are doing, the Government of Canada is already engaging with tourist communities, "investing" in changing them, such as Sherbrooke, and implementing their "Tourism Vision" program that aligns with ICUN objectives. With the Bighorn proposal for park expansion those who live in the affected area will be a target for this agenda. Expanding existing parks has been an item on the agenda for some time. CBT is the reason, sucking in surrounding gateway communities and making them part of the agenda. Planning is already in the works. The Alberta Ecotrust will have a "Environmental Gathering, in which Shannon Phillips will be speaking and Rachel Notley supports. The focus will be the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the intent is using these newly protected areas as an investment, which is the reasoning for the Mission Wealth Advisors presenting at the gathering. Investors will take over the livelihood of those who currently live in and have businesses in the area. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) also has their fingers in the bowl for PA tourism, publishing this Ecotourism: Principles, Practices & Policies for Sustainability document in 2002. Y2Y is identified as an active "regional" participant in this 2012 document, Sustainable Mountain Development Green Economy and Institutions, which describes the true intention behind Y2Y activities, a "framework" for mountain development. With Agenda 21 as a key reference for future action for Governance, the focus is conservation and development, "green investment", policy partnerships with the private sector (P3), and green energy use. What this gibberish really means is the technocrats believe we are unable to control our growth with proper planning, harm the land and environment, and indeed we ourselves need to be micromanaged. This is one massive agenda for control, or more appropriately worded, dictatorship, and governments are right in line to implement it in their partnerships with the UN and NGOs such as Y2Y. The UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is spreading this same agenda around the world, promoting "observation" of nature, specialized tour operators, managing areas for conservation, and promotion of education on conservation. Both Agenda 21 (pg 33) and 2030 have specific sections on tourism. This objective has been planned for many years and as more land is placed into forms of protection, they are to the point where more dictatorial methods will incrementally be placed on us. The UN recently updated their sustainable mountain development objectives. The Alberta Tourism Framework 2013-2020 includes many of the IUCN objectives for ST, using recreational areas for economic incentives, designing areas to dictate what tourists are allowed to do, basically taking over all local control of tourism. Since it is seen as an investment, this is why the Mission Wealth Advisors group is a presenter at the gathering. Now is the time for you to leave behind the "I don't know what to do" slogan. Be the sheepdog before a sustainable tourism corporate developer comes knocking at your door to design the whole area as a master plan, or through the government. As mentioned in the Bighorn proposal survey, huts are part of the plan, having already been implemented by the government with the Alpine Club of Canada and its corporate partners in the Castle Wildland Provincial Park. This and more will become part of the Bighorn plan, a man-made design that pushes locals out, restricts and regulates use, and provides wealth to businesses that is garnered from us.
Otherwise, you will be outweighed by this agenda, and the graphic below indicates your position in the decisions. Jody Hilty, President and Chief Scientist at Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), spoke at the Riparian Summit at the Agricultural Sustainability Institute in 2017. She was introduced as being "crazy about wildlife corridors". At various points in the video there are some striking revelations about how this woman thinks, and what Y2Y really intends to do. She was very clear about "how to push policy" (14:40) that reflects Y2Y objectives. In spite of Y2Y always stating there will be no reduction of OHV use, she clearly voices her distain for OHV use by stating the intent to "remove OHVs" (9:00). The ultimate Y2Y goal, which is not revealed very often, is taking over land, not only for protection, but for "opportunities to diversify economically" (26:15), for a "greater economic return (27:08), and protecting the Bighorn Wildland for economics (23:45). Ms. Hilty thinks "times have changed" and damage to the land is "rampant across the front page". There was also mockery of Idahoans who live in rural areas, chastising them for thinking this was part of a United Nations (UN) agenda, "black helicopters", when that is actually fact through Y2Y's involvement with the IUCN. How dare you Ms. Hilty suggest that anyone but yourself is crazy, you are the liar. At the 22:15 mark she openly admitted the plan to "reconnect bears through riparian restoration". Grizzlies are a major target for their connectivity agenda. Who does she think she is? While these are only highlights that stand out the whole video should be watched for the broader picture on the Y2Y delusion. Below is a map of the targeted areas she speaks to. As to her reference to pushing policy, Y2Y has close connections with the government. Harvey Locke, Y2Y founder, is buddies with Shannon Phillips and Catherine McKenna. In addition, Harvey is essentially part of the Tides foundation which is a major funding source of Y2Y. Stephen Legault, Y2Y program director Crown, Alberta and Northwest Territories, reveals the Y2Y economic agenda as well. "Alberta government has an opportunity to continue the work to provide green jobs and help resource dependent communities modernize their economies for the 21st century...". Katie Morrison, CPAWS Southern Alberta conservation director, states, "...creating new parks is a form of economic stimulus...”. These technocrats think that communities close to or within tourist areas are incapable of managing the economics of tourism, and need to be taught their idea of what it is. Their idea is forcing these generational communities to change the way in which they operate to a green economy, based on controlled use of land, low land impacts, dictated activity, and less use.
Shannon Phillips has already announced $40 million for infrastructure in these new parks. Since she and Harvey are such great pals it looks like Y2Y will get its wish for controlling land use within their delusional scheme for a Bighorn wildland park. It is up to us to stop them. |