Environmental groups are actively pursuing their goals throughout Idaho. This page will keep Idahoans updated on the areas being affected, what the environmental group objectives are for that area, and who is involved.
Network For Landscape Conservation
It is well known that the federal government is heavily in bed with non governmental organizations (NGO), especially our resource agencies through the Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). What may not be understood is how big that bed is or why federal agencies continue to implement NGO objectives over the voice of citizens. The Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC) provides the explanation.
The NLC "mission" is advancing "...collaborative, cross border conservation as an essential approach to connect and protect nature, culture, and community". Note should be taken on that cross border statement. This means across states, counties, and countries, the primary country they are referring to is Canada. There is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. NLC is a "hub" of organizations and individuals who participate in the agenda to place as much land as possible into conservation. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Nature Conservancy, Land Trusts, Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM), conservation zealots, and others all serve on the coordinating committee. NLC membership includes "100-plus organizational partners and 2,000-plus involved practitioners."
While NLC claims to "bring people together", it is really about robbing citizen rights for representation through their elected officials, instead placing decisions with those who have no interest other than implementing their own ideology. By their own admission, they recognize this is a "shift in process" that "...crosses jurisdictional and topical boundaries, transcending traditional decision-making processes (meaning the foundation of our government as a Republic), and top-down hierarchies." It is government run amok with tyranny.
Recently, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were "discontinued". However, efforts are now underway by USFWS and state agencies to fund the same objective through "public and private partners" and continue their conservation work. NLC is also pursuing funding for their objectives through a newly created Catalyst Fund, with money coming from foundations. This money will be used to help "build capacity", that is, it will bring in more partners to overpower us with their objectives and build up NGO activity. All of their initiatives in Idaho can be found on this map with the names of the groups that are executing their agenda upon us. Get to know those names so you know who you are dealing with, and their objectives. Since the cooperatives were eliminated, or at least diminished in their capacity, the governments and NGOs are now coalescing into organizations such as the NLC, there are many others. This is creating possibly a new, more powerful mass that will increase their threat towards us.
As seen here, NLC partners include the USFS, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, NGOs, land trusts, foundations, policy centers, and universities. Nowhere to be found are citizens or local governments. It is these groups and individuals who are making decisions with the federal government on land use, if use is even allowed at all. In conjunction with these groups, federal agencies write policies, then, using the Delphi technique, parade around in front of us with a charade of phony collaborative meetings to placate us into believing we have input. Opposing science to theirs is ignored, violating the Data Quality Act, and impacts to local businesses are dissed which is in conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Included in these ignored laws is the mandate for Coordination, the requirement that a federal agency meet with local governments to ensure consistency in land use policies prior to any action being taken.
While the NLC claims local governments are aware of and support landscape conservation, when is the last time your elected official announced this support to constituents? Is it the intent for local governments, who hold the highest authority for governance closest to the people, to align "...with appropriate state, federal and non-governmental programs to support landscape conservation..."? Or is that support hidden through unelected associations such as the National Association of Counties? NLC admits to incorporating their objectives "...into existing state policies and programs—in traditional conservation programs like State Wildlife Action Plans...". There is no escaping the fact that the intent is to align government policies that support landscape conservation in all levels of government. To learn more about those objectives NLC has archived webinars which provide insight into how these individuals and groups think and their ideology.
The truth is, federal agencies are in partnership with the NLC and its members to develop policy, however the members of the "Policy Working Group" are not identified. A policy paper was written for President Trump shortly after he was elected, deciding for you that you believe in their brand of conservation, asking for continued use of your tax dollar to support them, and supporting the creation of partnerships with the private sector. Perhaps the groups listed in that paper identify those who are part of the working group. This is why citizens cannot get their voice heard, the NLC and all of their cronies have already made the decision with the federal government. In fact, the 1964 Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser from the Wilderness Society. That is how long the NGOs have had control. Completely left out of the equation is local government and citizen involvement. The federal government works for these groups, not us.
For all of those who are experiencing these atrocities on local issues, your voice being ignored in decisions about public land, take this information to your next meeting with a federal agency, start asking questions about their partnerships with NGOs, and provide those NGO names. Make them aware that you know these partnerships exist and ask that documentation of their work with each other is made available to you. Demand answers, you have a right to know who is running the show with these agencies. Publicize your knowledge about this information, identify the groups and players and name them, identify their objectives and how it aligns with federal agency actions. Expose them, confront them, let others know so they can join you. Now is the time to disrupt their agenda and expose the truth.
The NLC "mission" is advancing "...collaborative, cross border conservation as an essential approach to connect and protect nature, culture, and community". Note should be taken on that cross border statement. This means across states, counties, and countries, the primary country they are referring to is Canada. There is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. NLC is a "hub" of organizations and individuals who participate in the agenda to place as much land as possible into conservation. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Nature Conservancy, Land Trusts, Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM), conservation zealots, and others all serve on the coordinating committee. NLC membership includes "100-plus organizational partners and 2,000-plus involved practitioners."
While NLC claims to "bring people together", it is really about robbing citizen rights for representation through their elected officials, instead placing decisions with those who have no interest other than implementing their own ideology. By their own admission, they recognize this is a "shift in process" that "...crosses jurisdictional and topical boundaries, transcending traditional decision-making processes (meaning the foundation of our government as a Republic), and top-down hierarchies." It is government run amok with tyranny.
Recently, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives were "discontinued". However, efforts are now underway by USFWS and state agencies to fund the same objective through "public and private partners" and continue their conservation work. NLC is also pursuing funding for their objectives through a newly created Catalyst Fund, with money coming from foundations. This money will be used to help "build capacity", that is, it will bring in more partners to overpower us with their objectives and build up NGO activity. All of their initiatives in Idaho can be found on this map with the names of the groups that are executing their agenda upon us. Get to know those names so you know who you are dealing with, and their objectives. Since the cooperatives were eliminated, or at least diminished in their capacity, the governments and NGOs are now coalescing into organizations such as the NLC, there are many others. This is creating possibly a new, more powerful mass that will increase their threat towards us.
As seen here, NLC partners include the USFS, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, NGOs, land trusts, foundations, policy centers, and universities. Nowhere to be found are citizens or local governments. It is these groups and individuals who are making decisions with the federal government on land use, if use is even allowed at all. In conjunction with these groups, federal agencies write policies, then, using the Delphi technique, parade around in front of us with a charade of phony collaborative meetings to placate us into believing we have input. Opposing science to theirs is ignored, violating the Data Quality Act, and impacts to local businesses are dissed which is in conflict with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Included in these ignored laws is the mandate for Coordination, the requirement that a federal agency meet with local governments to ensure consistency in land use policies prior to any action being taken.
While the NLC claims local governments are aware of and support landscape conservation, when is the last time your elected official announced this support to constituents? Is it the intent for local governments, who hold the highest authority for governance closest to the people, to align "...with appropriate state, federal and non-governmental programs to support landscape conservation..."? Or is that support hidden through unelected associations such as the National Association of Counties? NLC admits to incorporating their objectives "...into existing state policies and programs—in traditional conservation programs like State Wildlife Action Plans...". There is no escaping the fact that the intent is to align government policies that support landscape conservation in all levels of government. To learn more about those objectives NLC has archived webinars which provide insight into how these individuals and groups think and their ideology.
The truth is, federal agencies are in partnership with the NLC and its members to develop policy, however the members of the "Policy Working Group" are not identified. A policy paper was written for President Trump shortly after he was elected, deciding for you that you believe in their brand of conservation, asking for continued use of your tax dollar to support them, and supporting the creation of partnerships with the private sector. Perhaps the groups listed in that paper identify those who are part of the working group. This is why citizens cannot get their voice heard, the NLC and all of their cronies have already made the decision with the federal government. In fact, the 1964 Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser from the Wilderness Society. That is how long the NGOs have had control. Completely left out of the equation is local government and citizen involvement. The federal government works for these groups, not us.
For all of those who are experiencing these atrocities on local issues, your voice being ignored in decisions about public land, take this information to your next meeting with a federal agency, start asking questions about their partnerships with NGOs, and provide those NGO names. Make them aware that you know these partnerships exist and ask that documentation of their work with each other is made available to you. Demand answers, you have a right to know who is running the show with these agencies. Publicize your knowledge about this information, identify the groups and players and name them, identify their objectives and how it aligns with federal agency actions. Expose them, confront them, let others know so they can join you. Now is the time to disrupt their agenda and expose the truth.
Island Park
Since 2016 Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) has been actively pursuing wildlife overpasses along the Hwy 20 corridor from Ashton to the Montana state line, especially at Targhee Pass. Y2Y created the Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage Initiative (IPSWI) as a front group for support of their work, using the Idaho Master Naturalist group to give the appearance of community support. The Henry's Fork Legacy Project was also a Y2Y created group which now has a scrubbed website. Y2Y has made it their objective to have three wildlife overpasses for Elk built at Targhee Pass.
Neither the elk or overpasses are the issue for Y2Y. They want the Island Park area desperately for connectivity from Yellowstone National Park over to the Centennial mountains and into the Salmon area which is in the High Divide, another targeted area by Y2Y. By having overpasses built they can then declare the area as an Elk migration corridor, justifying the need for protection. From there, adjacent land would also be declared as needing restrictive land use regulations for protection of the corridor. This new land protection would then provide the "linkage" to the rest of Idaho and their targeted areas.
Island Park residents have been kept in the dark as Y2Y targeted the Hwy 20 road project upgrades for inclusion of overpasses. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) worked with these individuals prior to notifying the residents. As residents learned of the true Y2Y objectives, their involvement with the GNLCC, and the ultimate goal of using Island Park for connectivity, they began to expose Y2Y.
Y2Y intends to implement the same objectives throughout Idaho. Using transportation projects, and with their close involvement with ITD they have early notification of projects, they build front groups that support their objectives. But those groups are really Y2Y. Idahoans must become involved in stopping them from implementing their objectives for wildlife overpasses in other areas.
All of the documentation on the Island Park issue can be found at www.sipwo.weebly.com.
Citizen Advocacy for Island Park Idaho Issues
Neither the elk or overpasses are the issue for Y2Y. They want the Island Park area desperately for connectivity from Yellowstone National Park over to the Centennial mountains and into the Salmon area which is in the High Divide, another targeted area by Y2Y. By having overpasses built they can then declare the area as an Elk migration corridor, justifying the need for protection. From there, adjacent land would also be declared as needing restrictive land use regulations for protection of the corridor. This new land protection would then provide the "linkage" to the rest of Idaho and their targeted areas.
Island Park residents have been kept in the dark as Y2Y targeted the Hwy 20 road project upgrades for inclusion of overpasses. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) worked with these individuals prior to notifying the residents. As residents learned of the true Y2Y objectives, their involvement with the GNLCC, and the ultimate goal of using Island Park for connectivity, they began to expose Y2Y.
Y2Y intends to implement the same objectives throughout Idaho. Using transportation projects, and with their close involvement with ITD they have early notification of projects, they build front groups that support their objectives. But those groups are really Y2Y. Idahoans must become involved in stopping them from implementing their objectives for wildlife overpasses in other areas.
All of the documentation on the Island Park issue can be found at www.sipwo.weebly.com.
Citizen Advocacy for Island Park Idaho Issues
Salmon
Salmon sits in an area Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) calls the "High Divide". Y2Y needs the unprotected areas around Salmon for continued linkage to north Idaho. There are a couple of issues Y2Y is working on, and providing interference.
First is the Salmon River. Efforts by Y2Y (Kim Trotter) and partners American Rivers, Salmon Valley Stewardship (Gina Knudson), and Idaho Conservation League (ICL, Kim Trotter) are using the forest plan amendment process to incorporate designation of the Salmon as a Wild and Scenic River which would forever remove any ability to use the river for recreation. Interestingly, the USFS has combined two separate forests, the Salmon National Forest and Challis National Forest into one forest plan amendment. Congress is the only body that can authorize a forest designation, which in this case they did not. The most recent "Salmon-Challis National Forest Assessment report was released in July, 2018.
Secondly, by Y2Y's own admission, their objective in the forest plan amendment is also driving "...conservation forward through community and federal processes such as land-use planning." Ms. Trotter also wants to "...determine what must be protected to maintain connectivity on land and in water, and where we can all agree on other uses the community will support...". This woman doesn't even live in the Salmon area yet she is making decisions about another area as if she was leading the community. There is also the notion that for some reason the land and water are not connected, which really is not accurate, there is no such thing as unconnected water and land. At least there was the admission of the intent for land-use planning. That is one end objective, dictating how land is used.
Comments on the forest plan revision are needed to counter the objectives of conservation initiatives and groups. Don't let them take our right to enjoy the Salmon river and area away from us. This also impedes their objective to link the High Divide to the rest of the state.
First is the Salmon River. Efforts by Y2Y (Kim Trotter) and partners American Rivers, Salmon Valley Stewardship (Gina Knudson), and Idaho Conservation League (ICL, Kim Trotter) are using the forest plan amendment process to incorporate designation of the Salmon as a Wild and Scenic River which would forever remove any ability to use the river for recreation. Interestingly, the USFS has combined two separate forests, the Salmon National Forest and Challis National Forest into one forest plan amendment. Congress is the only body that can authorize a forest designation, which in this case they did not. The most recent "Salmon-Challis National Forest Assessment report was released in July, 2018.
Secondly, by Y2Y's own admission, their objective in the forest plan amendment is also driving "...conservation forward through community and federal processes such as land-use planning." Ms. Trotter also wants to "...determine what must be protected to maintain connectivity on land and in water, and where we can all agree on other uses the community will support...". This woman doesn't even live in the Salmon area yet she is making decisions about another area as if she was leading the community. There is also the notion that for some reason the land and water are not connected, which really is not accurate, there is no such thing as unconnected water and land. At least there was the admission of the intent for land-use planning. That is one end objective, dictating how land is used.
Comments on the forest plan revision are needed to counter the objectives of conservation initiatives and groups. Don't let them take our right to enjoy the Salmon river and area away from us. This also impedes their objective to link the High Divide to the rest of the state.
Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor
For northern Idaho, this is a dangerous "trans-boundary" objective of Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) from both the Canadian and U.S. sides. Candace Batycki is the Program Director for British Columbia and the Yukon, and Kim Trotter is the U.S. Program Director. Both are working on this objective for conservation.
Through their Cabinet-Purcell Collaborative, which does not include citizens from either country, and see the area as a "...transboundary link connecting wildlife populations in southeastern British Columbia with those in north Idaho and northwestern Montana." The GNLCC held a webinar in 2016 so Ms. Batycki and Ms. Trotter could explain their intent. Over 65 non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been recruited for this effort. along with land trusts and government agencies. That means more land removed from our use, wealth building for land trusts, and more government control over land. Here is just how much land they intend to control between our two countries.
Through their Cabinet-Purcell Collaborative, which does not include citizens from either country, and see the area as a "...transboundary link connecting wildlife populations in southeastern British Columbia with those in north Idaho and northwestern Montana." The GNLCC held a webinar in 2016 so Ms. Batycki and Ms. Trotter could explain their intent. Over 65 non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been recruited for this effort. along with land trusts and government agencies. That means more land removed from our use, wealth building for land trusts, and more government control over land. Here is just how much land they intend to control between our two countries.
The Collaboriate (sic) Conservation Framework and Strategic Plan from October, 2008 lays out the plan to use the grizzly bear as their pawn. Idaho Fish & Game, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, along with "Team Canada" and the GNLCC as a funder, identified grizzlies as an "umbrella" species and in 2015 studied grizzly movement between our countries to identify "linkage areas" between protected areas. Linkage areas will eventually lead to protected areas for "connectivity", followed by land use restrictions. As a result of this study they proceeded with a "linkage area assessment and prioritization analysis". When did Idaho taxpayers or the legislature for that matter give approval to spend money on a study that in no way benefits Idahoans? And where did they get approval to engage in a study with Canada and their governments?