The total revenue listed on the 08' tax form is $1,326,962. On page 2 there is a little more detail about their intent. For the overall mission it is "maintaining and restoring" the Y2Y region, as if there was some sort of already existing problem, which there wasn't. In their conservation program, the Rocky, Purcell, and Mackenzie mountains were again targeted for studies on core habitats, and again for Grizzlies. Naturally, "their" science is made available for land use decisions, because that is what it is all about, control over land. For communications they believe they have the answer to "ensure healthy coexistence of wildlife and communities", again implying that it had not existed prior to their vision. What nonsense. They also "develop tools and messages" to communicate with foundations, businesses, governments, and members of the general public. Translated, this means they distort their true agenda into something fluffy that everyone will find wonderful. Besides, their messages were already being received in their partnerships with governments and businesses to jointly plan what they wanted to do to us. $1,042,634.00 was funneled to Y2Y-Alberta, $999,500 for program services, $20,364 for management and general services, and $22,500 for fundraising services, page 10. The total of gifts, grants, and contributions from 04' to 08' came to $6,579,336. On the page, Statement for Activities Outside the United States, Canada was allotted $832,000 for conservation program services, and 167,500.00 for communication services. Almost one million dollars to promote Y2Y in Canada. The page listing the organizations who benefited from this appears to be redacted. In spite of Y2Y-MT being registered as a non-profit in Montana, the 09' tax form lists the principle officer in Canmore, Alberta. Y2Y-Alberta received just a little less money, $827,135, perhaps because some money was shifted to the Wild Foundation in Colorado, in the amount of $241,900. The first page that comes up for this groups states it "builds strong communities". This is interesting given the recent development of land take over in Alberta, and the disclosure of an economic development agenda with tourism. Perhaps the ground work was being laid this early in Y2Y plans. Since when was it up to organizations to decide how a community should look, taking away all citizen rights to determine how they want their communities be governed? This group claims to work at a grassroots level but the true picture is they work at a national and international level, interfering with governmental processes. Their framework comes from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and they lump the sovereignty of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico into one piece of land, North America, even creating a committee to make decisions about how we live. As usual, the Canadian and U.S. governments are in partnership with this group, the United Nations, and corporations. If there is anything to be learned about all of these organizations, it is to erase boundaries and jurisdictions. It can be found in everything that they do. Highlights of the remaining tax forms will be posted.
0 Comments
While reviewing tax forms may at times seem tedious and irrelevant, it really tells a compelling story about the massive growth of this organization financially, the power base it was building with prominent individuals to roll over citizen rights, their clear intent to control land use, and the deliberate, manipulative, and sequential steps they were building upon to achieve these goals, which both Canada and the U.S. are plagued with now. Have faith, this is worth the read. A brief summary was given on the 05' Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) tax years in the 01'-02 article, however a few points not mentioned are provided here. The address change to Bozeman from Missoula for Y2Y-MT in the 04' form remains. In the 05' form a total revenue of $675,258 was listed, a drop from the previous year. On page 6, retained Canadian officers include Buffler, Bewick, and Guth with two new additions Lorraine Laplante, at the time Director of Marketing and Communications, and Melodie Creegan, a marketing expert, both for the purposes of promoting Y2Y. Two new U.S. additions are listed, Charles Chester from Massachusetts who teaches transborder conservation, and Steve Duerr from Jackson, Wyoming, a developer and attorney with a rather extensive resume, and international involvement. The remaining retained officers are listed on page 18, Peart, Russell-Towe, and Sawchuck, but the list is shorter. This is really rounding out how they plan to market themselves and redesign land use. Christine Torgrimson, page 7, was paid $30,990 Canadian dollars for her work as part of her program, however, it is unknown what her work entailed, its relationship to Y2Y, and if the payment came from Y2Y-MT. The form still lists being related to Y2Y-Alberta but the requirement to identify Y2Y-Alberta as the paid independent contractor is on page 10, an astonishing amount of $911,000, broken down into $749,650 for program services, $49,000 for management and general, and $112,250 for fundraising on page 3. Similar to the previous year more money is being funneled to Canada. Why? On page 20 it states the Y2Y Conservation Initiative Society, that is Y2Y-Alberta, has not applied for federal tax exemption in the U.S.. Was this the U.S. law, or treaty, that covered this type of transaction? Page 19 gets interesting. Three Canadian employees were compensated by Y2Y-Alberta for their work. Buffler was paid $113,998, Bewick $68,644, and Laplante $66,951. That is a total of $249,593 Canadian dollars split between them, a quarter of a million dollars without any clear indication of what they did other than book keeping for Y2Y-MT and marketing. Were these amounts taken from the $911,000 that Y2Y-Montana sent to them for management and general activities? The IRS does allow compensation of members, but since it is a U.S. 501(c)3, does it allow payment to individuals in another country? How does that work with paying taxes and other requirements for a U.S. non-profit? Y2Y-MT claims on page 21 the governing body mission is to represent "broad public interests". What public interests have been represented by this group? There is no public engagement about the objectives they want to pursue for banning public land use, taking ownership of as much land as possible by various means, nestling themselves into government agencies, using funding to promote themselves and oppose citizens, while chastising and dismissing those who do not agree with them. What representation was offered to those who use the land? None. It is astonishing they passed an audit for this tax year, page 25. The "Y2Y' financial statements by an auditor starts on page 26 with a rehash of their structure on page 32. Page 33 identifies Y2Y-Montana receiving "...88% of its total revenue from two foundations.", and as of 12/31/05 "...81% of its total receivables are with one foundation." Those are U.S. foundations. What are the goals of these foundation to fund this agenda, what is it that they want? An explanation of how dues are paid is listed on page 22. But there was also some other interesting activity going on at the same time in 05'. Below is a 2005 Yellowstone to Yukon report on Grizzly Bear Conservation in the Yellowstone to Yukon Region by Troy Merrill, one of the original Y2Y board members. This report was commissioned by Y2Y with the "...LTB Institute of Landscape Ecology to conduct the modeling work on grizzly bears...", with Y2Y planning "...to use the information in this report to guide its conservation activities for grizzly bears in western North America." It just so happens that Troy Merrill is also the Research Director of LTB Institute of Landscape Ecology, a business registered in Idaho but with very little information regarding its function. Another undated report on grizzlies was prepared for Alberta, Canada. Funding for this report was provided by the Wilburforce, Summerlee, and Earth Friends Wildlife foundations, and the LaSalle Adams Fund. As a former board member did Merrill have indirect access to Y2Y funding for his own business through his contacts? Was part of the $411,209 spent on conservation, page 4, used for these studies or used for a separate objective? Y2Y commissioned this study, what money was used for it? More truth is given on what Y2Y is doing on conservation, page 17. "We study the habitat needs of wildlife in the Rocky, Purcell, and McKenzie Mountains to determine which core habitats and connecting areas are needed for wildlife populations to survive over time". "We thus make Y2Y science as a tool for making land management decisions...". Y2Y believes they have the authority, and are the only ones with expertise, on how land should be used and governed. That is why they are so aggressive with their objectives. By its own admission, Y2Y states, "Since its inception 20 years ago, Y2Y has used grizzly bears as the main indicator species to develop its conservation strategy." This is a calculated intent and the grizzy is in the crosshairs. All of this money was being dumped into setting up the foundation and agenda with grizzlies being used for eventual banned land use. This grizzly agenda has now been focused down to Alberta, and the Purcell mountains in northern Idaho. Grizzlies are being used as an "umbrella" species, meaning its use captures many other species for conservation. Y2Y deliberately set up these grizzly studies to justify their goal of banning land use. Prohibiting land use is their only agenda. It is clear that over 5 years Y2Y-MT is becoming a very well oiled machine, ready to decide your fate with land use, omitting your involvement by including only those who serve their agenda, while taking government, and your money, to do it. By 06', revenues skyrocketed to $1,258,931, page 2. Transfer of funds to Y2Y-Alberta under contract services is now $1,063,200, divided between program services $787,200, management and general $81,000, and fundraising $195,000, page 3, but shows a discrepancy with 1,053,200 on page 10. What happened to that extra $10,000? It appears they are advancing their agenda in Alberta as much as possible. Why? Page 6 lists Buffler, Bewick, Creegan, and Lapante as retained Canadian board members. New additions are Sean Britt, who previously worked at Earthwatch Institute, and Susan Chatwood, who specializes in promoting partnerships, addressing inequities in climate change, indigenous values, geographical "challenges", and is a university professor. Ament, Baldes, Chester, and Duerr are retained on the U.S. side. But there are some new additions on page 20. Guth, the Woodcock Foundation guy, Peart, Russell-Towe, and Sawchuck remain from Canada. New from Canada is Tracy Summerville, another university professor. Hadden and Johns remain from the U.S. side, but Jody Hilty, currently the Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, joins the board, along with Stephen Meador from Abbeville, Louisiana, who brings experience in tax services. That is an interesting twist to this group. On page 14, over 4 years, 02'-05', Y2Y-MT contributions and grants received grew to $3,536,096, with $505,856 going to conservation in just 06', page 4. It looks like the investment in marketing is working. By 07', there is now a P.O. box listed as the Y2Y-MT address in Bozeman, with an increase in total revenues to $2,236,952 on page 2. Is this increased funding coming from foundations, government grants, or private donations? On page 6 is one new Canadian member, Michael Code, who currently works for the Banff Centre, but served as development director on the board. A very interesting addition to the board on page 18 is another Canadian, David Luff, who at the time was the Vice-President of Environment and Operations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) (pg 2). CAPP previously funded two grizzly bear research projects and Mr. Luff was defending how this industry was conscientious of protecting the environment, even writing about it in 2002. Now in 07' he is on the Y2Y board. One new U.S. addition listed on page 18 is Shawn Fitzgibbons, whose background is in the health field but previously worked for Earthwatch. On page 3, under contract services, the funneling of money to Y2Y-Alberta is also more generous, a total of $2,222,397 divided between program services $1,974,897, management and general $42,500, and a whopping $205,000 for fundraising. Although noted the same on previous tax forms, Y2Y-Alberta being a related organization with common officers, it continues to be checked as a "non-exempt" organization, page 7. Is Y2Y-Alberta not a registered "charity" with exempt status? More clarity on Y2Y objectives is given on page 4. They report studies in the Rocky, Purcell, and Mackenzie Mountains were targeted for core habitats needed for wildlife, citing grizzlies and "human needs", and two other species. This science is made available for land management decisions. Program services expenses for this was $1,455,849. Another $576,800 was spent to "communicate" this information to governments and others. Since 05', they were funneling more money into their prize grizzly, using science with subjective predetermined outcomes to select target areas they wanted to ban from use, whether by designated parks or wilderness areas, or controlling restrictions on use. Grizzlies were just the handy patsy for their goal. A new individual is identified as the U.S. Regional Director, Penelope Pierce, who was compensated $52,429 for her work. Ms. Pierce is now the Gallatin Valley Land Trust Executive Director in Montana, increasing land placed into permanent non-use with conservation easements and ballooning their operating budget over one million dollars. It is unclear what her role was as Regional Director, perhaps the same. Payment in Canadian dollars to Buffler, $101,768, Bewick $61,426, Laplante 58,114, Britt $59,137, and Code $64,681 are listed on page 19. Why are U.S. board directors not receiving compensation? From 03'-06' contribution amounts totaled $3,939,065, around $400,000 more than 02'-05', page 14. So there you have it. By 07' this organization was pulling in enough money to conduct biased studies which would support their eventual goal of banning land use between two countries, while using the grizzly as an umbrella species to expand on the amount of land to take for non-use. More money was flowing from the U.S. to Canada, with a question as to whether or not Canadian board members were being compensated from that money, and if extra allocations of money were given for grizzly studies. However, what is clear, is that Y2Y was setting up the foundation for exploitation and manipulation of grizzlies for their agenda, a species that would justify their intent to ban land use across two countries. In both Canada and the U.S. the grizzly is declared a threatened species. In 2017 the grizzly was removed from the U.S. list but a federal judge decided it should remain on the list.
As a result, the grizzly is now overpopulated, thus the reason for delisting in the U.S.. With more grizzlies there is naturally more contact with us which Y2Y and other groups can then claim are "conflicts". This serves the agenda for demanding more banned land use and development, and placement of land into "protective" status. Or at its worst, the unnecessary destruction of the animal. Y2Y and all of these groups are willing to go to this extent, manipulation of an animal, to achieve their goal. It has also given them the opportunity to insert themselves into our lives with bear proof trash containers, just part of the subtle ways in which they want to regulate how we live. This bogus crisis was set up clear back in 05' by Y2Y and we are now experiencing the devastating outcomes for us and the grizzly. All of their work, studies, and claims were for this purpose, and they won't give up until they get all of what they want. The 08' and 09' tax reports will be reviewed next. In the previous post, Who Is Y2Y? The Truth, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) tax forms 01', 02', and 05' were reviewed. Revealed was how the individuals responsible for creating Y2Y set up their structure separately in Alberta, Canada and in Bozeman, Montana. In spite of this split between two countries, Y2Y-MT and Y2Y-Alberta shares board directors, operate "seamlessly", while Alberta staff manages the finances. U.S. dollars that go to Y2Y-Alberta from Y2Y MT includes federal grant money and donations from U.S. citizens. It is an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirement that all 501(c)3 organizations "...must make available for public inspection and copying its annual return." The public has a right to know Y2Y's financial and administrative structure. Not mentioned in the previous article were the Directors of this new organization, listed on the 01' tax form. Directors from the U.S. included Katherine Deuel, at the time a recent graduate from Montana State University, Caitlin Fox, and Marguerite Mahr, a Switzer Fellow. One Canadian Director was listed, Jim Pissot, Executive Director for WildCanada Conservation Alliance, and previous Executive Director with Defenders of Wildlife Canada. Deuel and Mahr were listed again on the first 02' tax form. However, another important aspect on page 27 of the 01' tax form, filed in the U.S., was Pissot signing that the new initiative would be allowed exemption for lobbying activities, a 501(h). Called the Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, Pissot signed electing Y2Y -MT to influence legislation, which carries some financial restrictions for eligibility. This is used to skirt a 501(c)3 general lobbying prohibition. Fascinating, a Canadian signing a U.S. tax form allowing an exemption to influence U.S. legislation. As Y2Y progressed through the years, what other surprises are there? Looking at the 03' tax form below, new Officers, Directors, and Trustees are listed on page 5. From Canada are Robert Buffler, an environmental consultant, Executive Director; Jane Bewick, Business Director; Brian Churchill, Secretary; Wendy Francis, Chairperson and conservationist,; and Jeremy Guth, Director. On the U.S. side are Rob Ament, Director; Barb Cestero, Director; Bob Ekey, Director; and David Hadden, Director. Page 16 lists new replacements from Canada, Beth Russell-Towe who is involved with tourism promotion, Jeremy Guth, a Woodcock Foundation Trustee while still working with Y2Y, and Peter Wesley. Peart, a carry over from 02', has worked for Parks Canada, Sierra Club BC, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the BC Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the BC Outdoor Recreation Council, the Royal BC Museum, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society-BC Chapter (CPAWS). As for the players in the U.S., Ament would be a U.S. equivalent to Harvey Locke in Canada, having been involved not only with Y2Y, but with the Center For Large Landscape Conservation, IUCN, Wildlands Network, and Western Transportation Institute. Cestero works for the Wilderness Society and previously worked for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Ekey has also been involved in the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Wilburforce, and Wilderness Society, while Hadden has been involved in the Montana Wilderness Association and is currently the Director of Headwaters Montana. Johns is co-founder of the Wildlands Network. One new replacement in the U.S., from Idaho, is Levi Holt, Nez Perce Tribal member and National Wildlife Federation board member. These are some of the technocrats who are deciding how you can use the land, devising plans to design it into something they think it should be, while using wildlife and climate change as justification. But there are so many others who are involved. There is also a new address listed on the first page, changing from a physical address in Missoula to a post office box. Page 2 lists an increase in revenue to $1,046,906. Contract services expenditures on page 3 lists $305,315, with $280,315 for management and general, and $25,000 for fundraising. This is the payment to Y2Y-Alberta. On page 9, Part III, (e), the box is checked NO, that there was no transfer of any part of its income or assets. Was money not transferred to Canada? Perhaps that is not the correct interpretation for this item. In fact, the tax form, even though it is a U.S. tax form, is signed by Canadian Jane Bewick on page 7. These are just some basics of the 03' tax return. There are some interesting tidbits in the 04' tax forms. Starting with the mundane, instead of a post office box listed, there is now a physical address for Y2Y-MT in Bozeman rather than Missoula. The total revenue dropped from the previous year to $836,924 on page 2. Previously, a question lingered as to why a second tax form was filed in 02'. "Revised" is written with an 04' date on the board member list and on the last page of the second 02' tax form in the previous article. An interesting shift occurred with the money being funneled to Y2Y-Alberta on page 3, still noted as contract services. On this return it jumped to $614,400. Now there is also a list of how the money was split between program services for $493,400, management and general for $86,000, and fundraising $35,000. It appears Y2Y-MT is funding the Canadian agenda more. Perhaps money flowing to Y2Y-MT from the government, donations, and foundations it was decided Y2Y-Alberta deserved their share of money. Either that or perhaps the decision was made that conservation should be more targeted in the Alberta area. Still checked marked Yes is the section on being related to the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Society, or Y2Y-Alberta on page 6, and the books are still managed by Alberta. Page 10 shows a total revenue from grants and contributions for the years 00' to 03', a massive $2,364,990. Over two million dollars to create schemes which remove our right to use our land. There was a minor shift in Directors. Canada continued with Buffler, Bewick, Francis, Guth, Peart, Russell-Towe, Sawchuck, and Zummerman with a new Canadian addition of Christine Torgrimson, pages 5 and 16. Torgrimson is Executive Director of the Salt Spring Conservancy, an uncanny way for Americans to get a tax deduction and not be subject to Canadian capital gains tax. That's pretty interesting. Is there no end to this conniving? As for the U.S., Ament, Ekey, Hadden, Holt, Johns, LaBelle, and Skeele remain. Gary Tabor returned, and another new director is Richard Baldes, a Tribal Water Board official, former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, board member of the National Wildlife Federation, Y2Y, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Understanding who the players are is an important aspect of Y2Y, in addition to the financial issue. The IRS "...reviews the board composition of charities to determine whether the board represents a broad public interest..." which clearly is not the case in the Y2Y board. These are changes noted in the two tax forms, but each year up to 16' there are other changes as this group expands. So, from 03' to 04' Y2Y continued to grow, financially, and through influence in their Board of Directors. They further enmeshed themselves with other conservation groups, a foundation, former federal employees, Tribes, and a land trust organization. Blatantly absent is any representation from regular citizens in communities. No citizen, who holds representation from their local government, is included in this amassed group of people, they are deliberately left out. That is purposeful on the part of Y2Y, they exclude all those who don't hold the same ideology, or perceived status, and share no concern about citizen rights or jurisdictional boundaries. This is what Y2Y is about. More to come with the 06' and 07' tax forms, and quick refresher on 05'.
Most are not aware that Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) was actually the brainchild of Harvey Locke, a Canadian and IUCN member, and whose official name is the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. In 1997 a group of environmentalists got together with Harvey in Canada and concocted the Y2Y vision, taking land from Yellowstone to the Yukon and locking it up for protection and non-use. From that point on Y2Y has grown exponentially, running over local authorities, buddying up with government agencies for implementing their objectives in spite of lobbying activities being prohibited, and in the process has made a mockery of citizen rights. The Y2Y website states it is a registered charity in Canada, and is registered as a 501(c)3 through its "Montana Society" in the U.S.. Y2Y officially registered their organization as a Canadian charity and as a 501(c)3 in the U.S. in 2005. But the hatched plot for Y2Y goes a little deeper. From 1997 to 2000, the players worked on organizing their vision. By 2000, Y2Y, in Montana, then requested a non-profit status. Because there had been no actual activity up to this point, Y2Y was issued a "Ruling Letter" on 9/1/2000. Ruling dates involve a letter written in advance of operations if the "...organization can describe its proposed operations in enough detail to permit a conclusion that it will clearly meet the particular requirements of the section under which it is claiming exemption." This gave Y2Y in the U.S. the ability to accept donations and build their environmental empire. At the same time, Y2Y was kept as two separate entities, one in Canada and one in the U.S., even though they co-existed as one organization. The 2001 Y2Y-MT tax form below provides some interesting information about the beginning of Y2Y. The address is listed as Bozeman, Montana with a revenue of $674,777.00 for the year. On page 3, there is a notation of expenditures for contract services in the amount of $127,760.00. Page 5 indicates the Executive Director is located in Alberta, Canada with remaining associates in Montana. Already this "U.S." non-profit was setting themselves up as an organization that was started in a foreign country but split between two countries, then arranged to operate as one group. Page 6, 80(a)(b) states, "Is the organization related through common membership, officers, trustees...to any other exempt or nonexempt organization?" This box is checked Yes and lists "Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Society." This is the Canadian version of Y2Y located in Alberta. In fact, at the bottom of page 6, a Canadian is responsible for managing the finances. On page 13 there are specific questions about transfers of cash "from the reporting organization to a noncharitable exempt organization". All boxes are checked No. Beginning on page 21, the explanation for this "joint" Canada-U.S. endeavor as Y2Y calls it, is explained. Quote: "On February 25, 2001 Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y-Montana) entered into an Agency Agreement with Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Society (Y2Y-Alberta), a non-profit Society incorporated in Alberta, Canada Y2Y-Montana receives funds given in the United States to be used in Y2Y programs. Y2Y-Montana maintains full and complete direction, control and supervision over the application of the funds it receives Y2Y-Montana contracts with Y2Y-Alberta for services rendered for the purpose of carrying out its charitable activities" So this organization was set up specifically in the U.S., presumably by Montana individuals who were involved from the beginning, in order to funnel money to their organization in Canada via contract. They aren't giving to a charity, they are giving to themselves. The actual agreement begins on page 22. Over the years Y2Y-MT has funneled millions of dollars to Canada for purposes of implementing Y2Y objectives. There is no separate charity. In 2002, Y2Y-MT listed their address in Missoula, MT with a total revenue of $671,747.00 for 2002. On page 3, $263, 279.00 was an expenditure for contract services, the money given to Y2Y-Alberta, broken down by management and fundraising. Page 5 indicates two U.S. citizens were compensated for their work, and the interim Executive Director and Finance & Operations coordinator were Canadians. Again, 80(a)(b) are checked Yes, listing Y2Y Society as the related agency. Canada is listed as being "in care of the books" on the bottom of page 6. For unknown reasons a second tax form was filed in 2002, however this tax form lists the new Board of Directors on page 11. The Canadians include Mac Hislop, Stephen Legault, Harvey Locke, Bob Peart, Wayne Sawchuk, and Ellen Zimmerman. On the U.S. side are Ernie LaBell (Jackson), Troy Merrill (ID), Ray Rasker (MT), Tom Skeele (MT), and Gary Tabor (MT). So we have allegedly two separate entities, in two separate countries sharing directorship through a contract. What other organization gets this cozy with a contract agency? The truth is they don't. All US Y2Y-MT tax forms were studied from 2001-2016. Interestingly, although Y2Y claims to be transparent, the tax forms listed on their website are incomplete, omitting the years from 2001-2011. There is far more information listed on the tax forms from other websites, and the most glaring omission is how the money sent to Canada is hidden by "contract services" in the previous years. Here is a quick run down of the amount of money sent to Y2Y-Alberta: 2003 - $305,315 (corrected) 2004 - $614,400 2005 - $911,000 2006 - $1,063,200 2007 - $2,222,397 2008 - $1,042,634 2009 - $827,135 2010 - $1,044,522 2011 - $1,331,500 2012 - $2,100,500 The remaining tax forms 2012-2016 can bee seen on the Y2Y website listed above, and the further amount of money that was funneled to Canada is under the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Society. The name and address of the principle officer is also listed in Canada on the first page. Y2Y-MT was able to register as a 501(c)3 in 2005, having completed its objectives to qualify. Y2Y-Alberta obtained their charity status in the same year. In the below 2005 tax form, beginning on page 32. this transition is explained. Quote: "The programs were started in 1995 by a network of U.S. and Canadian organizations, scientists and individuals. In 2000, the program became two separate entities, Yellowstone to Yukon conservation Initiative (a non-profit corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of Montana, Y2Y Montana) and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initative Society (a non-profit Society incorporated pursuant to the laws of Alberta, Canada, Y2Y Alberta.) It is the intention of Y2Y Montana and Y2Y Alberta that the two entities operate seamlessly, with one set of programs and activities addressing the region as a whole. Y2Y Alberta and Y2Y Montana have identical membership on their respective Board of Directors." On page 33, Y2Y-MT explains its relationship with Y2Y-Alberta. Quote: "Y2Y Montana contracts with Y2Y Alberta for services rendered for the purpose of carrying out its charitable activities. Both of these organizations have the same Board of Directors and the same Executive Director, but Y2Y Montana is an American nonprofit corporation and Y2Y Alberta is a Canadian entity. Because generally accepted accounting principles differ between these two countries, the corporations have not been consolidated." "For the year ended December 31, 2005, Y2Y Montana paid Y2Y Alberta contract services in the amount of $911,000." Y2Y- Alberta tax forms have also been studied but all information from both groups is too exhaustive for this post. The focus of this post was explaining the true origins of Y2Y, how they operate with Canada, and expose the vast amount of U.S. money being sent to another country. Indeed, Canadians have significant issues with this funding mechanism, and are suffering the same type of attacks with losing access to land because of the agendas Y2Y pursues, which are the same in Idaho. Because they are "seamless", they are really the same group, with the same individuals, and with the same agendas.
Over the years the Board of Directors has changed but it is always a combination of Canadians and Americans. In the 2005 tax form, on page 20, it states, "Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Society is a nonprofit corporation formed under the laws of Alberta, Canada. It has not applied for federal tax exemption in the U.S." Is this legal given the amount of money being funneled across the border? There are other nuances with these tax forms that will continue to be posted. For now, Idahoans must understand that no Y2Y agenda can be implemented, it is all a scam. A well funded scam. Every time you give $1 to this organization you are giving free rein for them to ship it to another country, especially under a questionable financial structure. In both Canada and the U.S., our governments are betraying citizens with their long term partnerships with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y). Below is a document by Jody Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, that clearly outlines how both governments have been working with Y2Y, "...driven by a group of conservationists...", "...for a vision of a protected and connected Y2Y region". These partnerships are heavily embedded and why there is no response to citizens who object in both countries. Not only is it a violation of the Canadian Code of Ethics, but it is also a violation of the U.S. Constitution, both of which elected officials are sworn to uphold. For those who have read the previous articles and are still unclear about the connectivity agenda, here is a short explanation. Land that is between protected areas such as national parks or wilderness areas, is considered "unprotected" land, the target of all environmental groups. All of the targeted areas for their conservation objectives have humans in the way so they describe every day normal activities as "threats", such as roads, OHV users, and development. What they describe as threats are nothing more than a ruse to take land use and development away from citizens, and it is happening in both Canada and the U.S.. Resource extraction such as logging, mining, or other activities used for our benefit are also targeted. But again, it is not about any of these things being a threat, all are being used as tools for further implementation of their connectivity agenda. Nova has an excellent short video you can watch that explains connectivity and what it means to ENGO/NGOs. It clearly states that land "outside of parks is the most important to protect". In the example they use across our countries, the Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC), Harvey Locke uses the Grizzly bear as the fabricated animal that needs its migratory path protected. They expect us to erase a boundary for a bear who has been traveling the same route since before Harvey was born. There is no threat, the bear is just the tool being used for taking land use away. These migratory paths are pursued for a "corridor" designation, and once that happens, they pursue the declaration of that area as needing "protection". Once land is placed in some type of protection, it is then used for "linkage" between protected areas, which is the connectivity piece, one protected land connected to another. While they claim they don't want to take over private land but rather want to work with land owners, the truth is they are rapidly buying land for conservation easements, and often times sell those to the governments. The easement is used for linkage. Mr. Locke mentions the Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor. Both Candace Batackyi, Canada Y2Y Program Director and Kim Trotter, U.S. Y2Y Program Director are working on this project and the GNLCC sponsored a webinar where they talk about it. Everyone must learn about connectivity. If there is an area under attack for banned use or protection, it is easy to see on their maps what role that areas plays for their connectivity objective. Let them know you are aware of this objective, tell them you understand why they are targeting that area, they rarely discuss this aspect with the general public. It is always presented as protecting water, wildlife, or some other nonsense but challenge them on it, because it is the truth, and they count on you not knowing. While there is much consternation about ENGOs being funded by U.S. foundations, it was the Canadian government who chose to betray Canadians by joining the GNLCC, collaborate with ENGO/NGOs, enact policies that support ENGO objectives and goals, and the U.S. is just as guilty for their participation in all of this. In fact, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) was a joint Canadian-U.S. effort (pg 895). The foundations and corporations which support these ENGO/NGOs are international, not necessarily specific to just the US. They have a goal of globalization, and are deliberate in ignoring sovereignty and boundaries. They are not funding Canada or the U.S., they are funding an agenda. In fact, this whole agenda is about erasing sovereign boundaries, putting both countries in the same dilemma. Both Canadian and American citizens are actually on the same side with our anger about this issue as we are both experiencing the ramifications from the same agenda. Let's put our anger where it belongs, on our governments, elitists, individuals, ENGO/NGOs, foundations, corporations, and globalists. In truth, this is what bonds us together, we are fighting the same enemies. That being said, this article will cover a couple of ENGO/NGOs in each of our countries that are operating with the same methods and goals, and how we are bound together by this activity. Canada The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, known as CPAWS is a Y2Y partner, as well as having partnerships with foundations and corporations. Along with Y2Y, CPAWS is also a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-search Y2Y & CPAWS) which is a primary driver of environmentalism. The primary goal is locking up land in conservation from Yellowstone Park to the Yukon. In addition, CPAWS successfully engaged the Canadian government to create a National Advisory Panel whose purpose is to "...achieve our commitment under the International Convention on Biological Diversity...", another UN outfit, and includes Harvey Locke as a member who is a Y2Y co-founder and an IUCN member. Y2Y created the Alberta Headwaters Project, an "initiative" which is a standard Y2Y tactic, creating groups to give the appearance of citizen support but it is really a way in which to hide that it is a Y2Y activity. Another tactic is targeting land use planning for insertion of their conservation objectives, "leading the initiative to influence these land-use plans" as they are doing in the Alberta Headwaters. This will affect the entire Alberta Province, including the Bighorn. Love Your Headwaters (LYH) is another group targeting Alberta. The Castle and Bighorn are specific targets for conservation. LYH doesn't specifically name any staff or members, but rather is an entity of organizations. The Conservation Alliance is a collection of businesses that fund different conservation groups in both countries; Edmonton Community Foundation and Calgary Foundation which both help donors make decisions about where their funds go; Alberta Real Estate Foundation which has an environmental focus on water management issues; Royal Bank of Canada; and the Sitka Foundation. These wealthy, elite groups are Love Your Headwaters and the ones who most likely have a major influence over your government. USA Idaho in particular has much in common with Canada, as well as Montana. We share boundaries between our countries. Again, these groups are all Y2Y partners. The Heart of the Rockies (HOR) has an initiative called the High Divide Collaborative, which is a conglomeration of governments, businesses, NGOs, and land trusts. It is the goal of this initiative to do the same as in Canada, remove access and declare land for conservation including rivers. Forest management plan updates are used similarly as the land use plans in Canada, a way in which to insert their conservation objectives, with Y2Y behind the effort. Next door to the High Divide is the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC). Their mission is the same as CPAWS, taking over land use with conservation efforts. Via its partner Y2Y, it is the goal of GYC and the High Divide to put all unprotected land between the two areas into conservation for connectivity purposes. Our Common Enemies These activities in turn provide connectivity to the Crown of the Continent (COC) which crosses the border into Canada, and Alberta. The Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC) is another Y2Y mission, again crossing our borders with the grizzly bear as the excuse for conservation. Listed here are some examples of how both governments are betraying us, proof that ENGO/NGOs are bonded with government, and sharing the same objectives. The betrayal of our governments needs to be exposed, who they are really working with, and validating why our voices are ignored, dismissed, and placated with manipulated language that we know gives a deceitful picture of the truth.
In East Kootenay there is a group called the Kootenay Conservation Program (KCP). More than just partners with Y2Y, Candace Batyck, the Y2Y B.C. and Yukon Program Director, sits on the board. Also on the board is Derek Petersen who works for Parks Canada and Ken Brock who works for the Protected Areas and Stewardship for Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service. In 2007, Canada and Montana signed an MOU with the Crown Manager's Partnership (CMP) to "...support CMP goals and strategic plan and...objectives". On the CMP leadership team are members of the US Forest Service, ENGO/NGOs, Canadian Forest Service members, and Megan Evans from Alberta Environment and Parks, who is also a subcommittee lead. But there are other Canadian & U.S. government members as well. What these groups call "trans-border or trans-boundary" are really a destruction of our national sovereignty by erasing our borders. By law, only the U.S. Senate can authorize agreements between countries, which was clearly violated in this case. Ian Dyson, Senior Manager, Provincial Planning Integration Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, now Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), even participated in the 2015 GNLCC Connectivity Workshop (pg 8, 12). He has since been replaced by Rob Simieritsch. Mr. Simieritsch is also on the board of the Miistakis Institute. More on Rob later. Both governments coordinate their combined work through the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, here is the list of those government agencies and other organizations who work together. This is why we are being ignored. The environmentalists, governments, elites and all the rest of them have their plans all laid out for us. These are just a few examples of how our governments work with these groups and it must be exposed and confronted. Both governments should be challenged to explain why they have joined these organizations and demands made to cease this activity, remove any individuals who participate in them, and instead represent the citizens who elected them. Let them know you are aware of their activity, put that activity for connectivity out there so they understand the larger plan for us is known, publish this knowledge so others can learn, file requests for information, and expose what they are doing. You see, our common enemy is Y2Y who has sub groups that are attacking both of us, and our governments who engage in and support their agenda. Y2Y has one goal for both of us, put as much land as possible into conservation, put all land under some type of protection so there is one long stretch of land over both our countries that will be regulated on how we can use it, garner millions of dollars in funding to do it, buddy up to our governments to get policies that support their objectives, and use their sub groups to distract us with local fights for our land use. It is happening in both countries. While there are many more groups that could be mentioned, understanding the larger picture is imperative. Our governments no longer represent either of us. Until this is exposed to the maximum, the bond between these groups and our governments, little headway will be made. This is what bonds us together as countries and we need to recognize that we both have the same passion to eliminate these groups, demand that our governments represent us, and support each other in our fights. What is important to understand for both of our countries is that our governments engaged in an agreement that was kept from our citizens. It is this agreement that has accelerated the environmental movement dramatically. In understanding your local issue involving land use bans and restrictions, it is important that the larger picture is understood so that opposing local issues can be addressed with full knowledge of where they originate. Following is a brief history of how we got here. In no way, shape, or form were U.S. citizens made aware of this, nor do we approve of the action that took place. Americans are as angry as Canadians over our difficulty with our governments. None the less, this is how it was started. In 2010, the Obama administration issued a memorandum called America's Great Outdoors (AGO). In that memorandum was a directive for the Department of Interior (DOI) to create 22 large landscape cooperatives across the U.S. which was done via Secretarial Order (SO) 3289 (Sec 3 (c)). While the SO references only the U.S., Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia were also included in the Great Northern LCC (GNLCC). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) was assigned the task of implementing the GNLCC and identify both B.C. and Alberta as participants (Pg 6). There was no U.S. congressional authorization for any of the activity nor citizen involvement from either country. As a GNLCC member, Y2Y should be seen as the umbrella over our countries as the main driving force in the GNLCC. There are a multitude of sub-organizations with whom they partner on both sides of the border and smaller initiative groups they typically start with specific targets for implementation of their agenda. In fact, most smaller organizations are the ones we end up dealing with at a local level, the foot soldiers to Y2Y. In Canada, Y2Y is called the Yellowstone to to Yukon Conservation Initiative Foundation and is a registered charity (#86430 1841 RR0001). To understand the depth of how both of our countries are impacted by Y2Y here is their latest map. Y2Y is the the behind the scenes force underneath that border with multiple projects they are implementing with their partners, and funding, some of which is listed under the Funding category under the Library Tab. The GNLCC map similarly covers the same area. Y2Y is a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) member, just type in Yellowstone to Yukon in the search box and United State for the country. CPAWS is another organization that is an IUCN member, type in CPAWS for the acronym and Canada for the state. Not only is Y2Y part of the GNLCC, but through its membership, IUCN objectives are being implemented. Their website lists several Hot Projects, here is the map. In this map, Y2Y identifies their objectives for protection, linkage, and connectivity. For Canada that includes the Greater Mackenzie Mountains, Upper Liard River, Stikine-Nass-Skeena Headwaters, Muskwa-Kechika Ecosystem, Peace River Break, and the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains. In the U.S. they are actively targeting the Salmon-Selway-Bitterroot, High Divide, and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Targets that apply to both of our countries includes the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains, Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor, and Crown of the Continent.
This is their larger objective over all of the land. Within each area they have local partnerships that are attacking you on land use issues such as banning OHV use, interfering in forest plan amendments, declaring a wilderness area or a river as wild or scenic, using different wildlife as justification for a migratory corridor, getting you to place your land into a conservation easement, or outright purchasing land for the same purpose, and use of wildlife overpasses. Every one of these actions are for the larger goal of taking land use away, gaining control over the resources, and controlling land use through regulations. The North Saskatchewan Regional Plan is an example of what regulations they think should be included. Along with this is comes more refined land use regulations, such as what Jodi Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, came up with in Guidelines and Incentives for Conservation Development in Local Land-Use Regulations, or this paper, Land use Planning: A potential force for retaining habitat connectivity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Beyond. These technocrats want to dictate how you live on your own land. Because of the GNLCC partnerships, and "friendships", with provincial, federal, and state governments, Y2Y has tremendous influence over laws and policies. In fact, most of these government agencies hold the same ideological beliefs as Y2Y, using IUCN criteria in their work (xvii) such as the Red List for Threatened Species, or Ecosystems. The IUCN even has categories for protected areas which aligns with the GNLCC and Y2Y, along with governance being part of the eventual IUCN plan. That plan does not include you but rather NGOs and governments making the decisions for you, just as they have been doing. This is why our citizens have such a difficult time getting their officials to respond to their input and hard work. It is also why "stakeholder" groups are a farce, stacked with people who represent NGOs, and the guise of stakeholder involvement isn't true, it has all been predetermined, just like all of it has been predetermined. This is the larger picture that everyone needs to understand as they confront the local issues. It is the larger issue that we are fighting. Y2Y began in 1993, which means a bunch of scientists, from both Canada and the U.S., along with their government partners, have grown into a massive force over the last 25 years, usurping local authority and our right to representation. As you look into the faces of those you are opposing, remember that it is most likely they do not understand this larger picture, it is kept very well hidden, and Y2Y lies to them about it saying it is all a conspiracy theory. As best that you can, educate them, show them the proof of what is hidden from them. It can, and has been done. When people understand and realize the truth, they can come to a different conclusion. And Y2Y knows it, they know how damaging it is for them to be exposed. That is the purpose of this website, to expose them by educating you, and you in turn educating others. That will bind both of our countries together for strength. Next will be an article on the more forceful NGOs and initiatives that lie in our countries. As noted in the GNLCC Canada article, since 2010 both Canadian and American governments have been in partnerships with conservation initiatives and Non-governmental organizations (ENGO/NGO) through the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC). The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), maintains a website that includes all LCC activity, including the GNLCC. What is so stunning about the LCCN is just how many organizations and governments are in bed with each other to take our land, and land use, away from us. All of the organizations are listed here. Under the Library tab on this site are lists of GNLCC organizations and their partnering NGOs, individuals who participate with those organizations and the GNLCC, and government officials who are joined with them. This article begins a series of more in depth exposure of these initiatives, government partnerships, individuals, ENGO/NGOs, and their common agendas working in each country, and in both for "trans-boundary connectivity". It is not about OHV or snowmobile use, saving rivers or wildlife. Wildlife, terrestrial, aquatic, avian, and biological are just pawns to justify their claim that land is needed for conservation using corridors, conservation easements, and other means to restrict and ban use. Their true goal is controlling all land, public and private, dictating how land is used, and to design the landscape in their vision. These groups and individuals are our adversaries in both countries, all working with each other against us. Because they have an incestuous relationship with our governments, our elected officials do not respond to constituents for solutions and decisions about land use. The government and environmentalists have a plan they are forcing onto us. These groups do not believe in jurisdictional boundaries, between our countries, provinces, states, or cities. They believe in "environmental" boundaries since wildlife and habitat transcend jurisdictional boundaries. There is no regard for sovereignty. Following is an introduction to some, but not all, of those groups and governments as listed on the GNLCC website, there is no separation between them, they are all interconnected, individuals and groups are often seen crossing over each other. It is important to understand all of the forces we are working against, it is larger than people realize. As we focus on local fights for land use, it distracts from the larger picture as plans are continually developed for restricting our ability to use our land. And they know it. As we continue to build this website continue to check back. Canada Alberta Government (AE) Alberta Environment & Parks (AEP) British Columbia (BC) BC Ministry of Forest, Lands (BCMFL) BC Ministry of Environment (BCME) Environment Canada (EC) Government of Yukon (GY) University of BC and Alberta Parks Canada (PC) United States U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Department of Transportation (DOT) U.S. Geological Service (USGS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Department of Interior (DOI) Department of Energy (DOE) Department of Defense (DOD) Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Idaho Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) University of Idaho (UI) Montana Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks (MDFWP) University of Montana (UM) WAFWA Conservation Initiatives Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative - Canada (Y2YI) Vital Ground (VG) Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) Non-governmental organizations (NGO) The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Sierra Club (SC) Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Wilderness Society (WS) Urban Land Institute (ULI) Heart of the Rockies (HOR) Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) Crown of the Continent (COC) Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP) Heart of the Rockies (HOR) Love Your Headwaters Western Transportation Institute (WTI) Institute for Landscape Conservation Design (iLCD) Wildsight Heart of the Rockies (HOR) Individuals Harvey Locke (Y2Y) Gary Tabor (CLLC) Kim Trotter (Y2Y) Candace Batycki (Y2Y) Stephen Legault (Y2Y) Aran O'Carroll (CPAWS) Kathy Rinaldi (GYC) Land Trusts (HOR) Ian Dyson (AEP, CMP, COC) Cindy Sawchuk (AEP, CMP) Greg Watson (USFWS, CMP) Brad Jones (CMP) Peter Swain (AEP, CMP) Steve Frye (MT, CMP) Linh Hoang (USFS, CMP) Megan Evans (AEP, CMP) Kim Davitt (VG, COC) Melly Reuling (CLLC, COC) Joel Berger (GBDC, CSU, WCS) Jody Hilty (Y2Y) Ray Rasker (Headwaters Economics) Rob Campellone (iLCD, USFWS, NPS, TNC) Renee Callahan (CLLC) Funding Our adversaries in kind include funding from Wilburforce, Tides Canada, Sonoran Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, Turner Foundation. Below are the GNLCC Steering Committee members. The GNLCC created an initiative and formed group called the Rocky Mountain Partner Forum (RMPF) consisting of Canadian and U.S. governments, calling it an "...international network of conservation practitioners working to connect our efforts and achieve landscape-level conservation of natural resources and processes in the Rocky Mountains." The Alberta Environment and Parks participates in this along with U.S. government agencies including the IDFG, USFS, and USFWS. Their partnerships include Y2Y, WCS, GYC, TNC, MSU, CLLC, WS, and others, all of whose agenda is to keep us from using our land. Target areas include the GYE, HD, COC, CPMC and all of the areas in the map below. Overall for both of our countries, here are some focal areas they are targeting. Now that some of these groups and individuals have been introduced to you, future articles will go more into depth about their activities in both countries, what agendas they are involved in, and how your right to use your land is being taken by them, and your government.
This article is the first in a series to alert Canadians to a scam that also involves the United States, a plot involving both our governments to place our land into various forms of conservation and take our right to use our land away from us. Sound unbelievable? Read on. In 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives. Twenty Two cooperatives were created in the US. For purposes of this article, the focus will be on the Great Northern Large Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) and Alberta. As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia, including western Alberta, where many aggressive land use restrictions are being sought. These cooperatives are a "regional" approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority. Both of our countries are under attack by the GNLCC. Meant to be an "international network", the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of US federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives. Just naming a few, GNLCC members include Alberta Land Trust Alliance, Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia, Y2Y Initiative, Alberta Prairie Conservation Forum, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement, or consent and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives. Concealed from us, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for use and why conservation initiatives have such influence over our governments, including Alberta. The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC (PPPLCC) covers the southeast portion of Alberta. These partnerships are listed on the Alberta Environment and Parks website, but they don't tell you about them or what they are doing.
The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others all work towards achieving GNLCC goals. In this document you will see the Government of Alberta, Environment Canada, and British Columbia are members of the GNLCC. There is also a map of the Crown of the Continent (COC) that includes the western portion of Alberta, but primarily engulfs British Columbia, and a map of connectivity targets. The Government of Alberta - Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC but when GNLCC and COC is searched on their website there is no information. They hide it from you. Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, US federal agencies, and ENGOs. Brad Jones, Robert Sissions, and Megan Evans represent various Canadian government agencies on the COC leadership team, and the GNLCC has funded them. They have a "Transboundary Conservation Initiative" that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans. Alberta is in the crosshairs for their Strategic Conservation Framework. This is just one hidden group you are fighting. Basically, GNLCC believes land is "fragmented" by development, impeding the movement of wildlife. Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are "isolated" from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into forms of conservation so that there is a "link" between the protected areas for "connectivity". Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse. The British Columbia Ministry of Environment participated in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012 and 2015. Y2Y also works to identify linkage zones. This short video explains connectivity. To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and wildlife overpasses. They work to put land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat. If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for protection for wildlife movement. With that protection comes restrictive or banned use, and also justification for restrictive land use policies, including how a private property owner can use their land. According to Y2Y, "Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands." While this article is about the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem the same concepts apply to all GNLCC land for restrictive land use policies. Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need. The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners. There are many initiatives working with the GNLCC which will be discussed later. But all of the objectives are the same. While distracting our attention with local issues that involve taking away our land use, behind the scenes they are diabolically plotting an agenda to put large landscapes into conservation that will take our land away from us and our ability to use it, and redesigning how we are allowed to use it, called landscape conservation design. It is time for Canada to join hands with the U.S. to fight this corrupt governmental takeover of our land that erases our boundaries and sovereignty, strips us of our right to use our land, obliterates our right to representation, and in essence has created a shadow government that is in collusion with conservation initiatives. This is where the fight lies. |