"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.
0 Comments
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. |