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.
0 Comments
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. |