|
Yukon to Yucatan - The Wildlands Project continues forward 9/25/03 Proponents of the Wildlands Project (the plan to re-wild 50 percent of the United States) are beginning their propaganda push to secure vast areas of the continental United States from the Yukon in Alaska to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula as a migration corridor for grizzly bears and wolves. Of particular concern are five areas it considers especially threatening to wildlife, like Interstate 70 through central Colorado and I-40 east of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jan Clanahan, regional director, explains that large carnivores need the space that humans now occupy and that wildfires and floods will devastate large areas too. "It's a big plan …We call it a 100-year vision," she said. "The first step is, you need to get out there and talk to everyone, …[w]e're talking to [federal] agencies, the landowners, other conservation groups, local community leaders." Clanahan hopes the blueprint influences the planning of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The Wildlands Project is a radical plan whose website states; "It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must re-create wilderness in large regions: move out the cars and civilized people, dismantle the roads and dams, reclaim the plowed land and clearcuts, re-introduce extirpated species." RELATED STORY: Mexico-to-Yukon Conservation Proposal Unveiled
9/25/03 CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - A conservation group unveiled a strategy Wednesday for protecting a contiguous area from Mexico to the Canadian Yukon with the goal of preserving wildlife migration routes. Of particular concern to The Wildlands Project are five areas it considers especially threatening to wildlife, like Interstate 70 through central Colorado and I-40 east of Albuquerque, N.M. ''A park here, an open space there, isn't working because we're still losing species at much higher than the natural extinction rate,'' said Jen Clanahan, the group's regional director. Clanahan explained that while few species migrate all the way from Mexico to northern Canada, contiguous protected areas make replenishment possible when isolated populations are wiped out due to wildfire or disease. And she said large animals such as wolves and bears require lots of space - as do natural processes like wildfires and floods. ''It's a big plan and it's going to take a while to implement. We call it a 100-year vision,'' she said. ''The first step is you need to get out there and talk to everyone. And that's what we're doing now is talking to agencies, the landowners, other conservation groups, local community leaders.'' She said she hopes the blueprint can influence long-range planning by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Five ''endangered linkages'' are considered in need of immediate protection: Crowsnest Pass on the Alberta-British Columbia border north of Waterton Lakes National Park, southern Wyoming's Powder Rim, Vail Pass in central Colorado, the area between Sandia Mountain Wilderness and Cibola National Forest east of Albuquerque, and the Arizona-Mexico border. RELATED STORY: Push for Delmarva Wildlands Project Heats Up - Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) Wants $500,000,000 for Land and Resource Protection Racket The Virginia Land Rights Coalition Bulletin/News Article—September 15, 2003 By L. M. Schwartz, Chairman, The Virginia Land Rights Coalition As the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers consider rule changes which could “weaken” Clean Water Act regulation of “isolated wetlands and non-navigable streams” in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, environmentalists and government officials in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware are opposing such changes while, at the same time, supporting a five-year, $500,000,000 plan for the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Initiative Program, the brainchild of Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.. In the Bay Journal, official publication of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (funded through the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office), Editor Karl Blankenship stated, “The change could make it problematic for the Bay Program to reach its goal of attaining a ‘no net loss’ in wetlands through regulatory programs. It may well threaten the Bay cleanup itself if protection were eliminated from all headwater streams, the smallest streams in the watershed.” The Delmarva region has been specifically targeted for numerous reasons. Gilchrest aide Rob Etgen explains its vulnerability and desirability for federal “protection”: “Delmarva is the largest contiguous rural region on the east coast of the United States, but it is changing fast.” The extortionists running the federal ‘protection’ racket have identified the weaknesses of rural areas and consider them easy prey. The Delmarva Program, part of the 2002 Farm Bill, is a new federal ‘pilot’ program instigated by Gilchrest within the Bay Watershed. It “allows the Secretary of Agriculture to direct conservation program funds on a priority basis to the most economically and ecologically valuable land on Delmarva” and, according to Gilchrest’s website, “will function as an umbrella, coordinating all of USDA’s conservation programs…giving the Department and the states of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware flexibility in administering those various programs.” (emphasis added) The Delmarva Program has been deceptively promoted by “a network of hundreds of individuals throughout Delmarva…to establish a network of land, both public and private throughout the peninsula, linked for the purpose of keeping agriculture economically viable, maintaining the strong rural character of our region, and maintaining the peninsula’s rich biological diversity.” In fact, the major thrust is acquisition and control of private property. Both the Delmarva Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program, which cover substantial parts of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, are linked in a multi-pronged effort to “maintain a cohesive and well-functioning ecosystem.” The Delmarva Program serves as an important regional laboratory for experimental fine-tuning of land-control methodology. The lessons learned will be applied elsewhere. Both programs neatly fit within the framework of The Wildlands Project (TWP), the nationwide scheme originally conceived by Reed Noss and Michael Soule of the Society of Conservation Biology, and Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, who summarized the concept: “It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must re-create wilderness in large regions: move out the cars and civilized people, dismantle the roads and dams, reclaim the plowed land and clearcuts, reintroduce extirpated species.” More than two dozen regional efforts across North America are part of the Wildlands Project, attempting to link “wilderness areas” with “wildlife migration corridors.” Allegedly, TWP will “keep ecosystems in balance and protect animals against extinction” as 50% of America’s land is converted into “core areas”, where no human activity will be permitted, and “buffer zones”, where only government-approved “sustainable” activities will be allowed. TWP goals include “relocation” of human populations from “core areas”, such as the Southern and Mid-Atlantic Appalachian Mountains, to concentrated human habitation areas where “human resources” can be easily controlled by government “planners.” Dave Foreman’s philosophy led him to propose: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” Echoing Marx’ theory of dialectical materialism, a March, 1994 Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document for “ecosystem management” stated federal bureaucrats should “consider human beings as a biological resource”, to be managed like cattle or trees. TWP was initially sponsored through the U.N.’s International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Funding for conceptual development was provided under contract with the Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy. Both organizations, along with hundreds of others, serve as fronts for laundering billions of federal, state and private funds into the acquisition and/or restriction of millions of acres of private land, a preliminary step for acquisition. The success of surrogate government land-acquisition agents is built upon false portrayals in the press as ‘saviors of the earth’ and ‘protectors of wild places’, and has been enhanced by charitable, tax-exempt status, direct government funding and interlocking ties with many of the worlds largest and wealthiest corporations and tax-exempt foundations. Wildlands “recovery” includes the (re)introduction of “extirpated species” such as wolves, cougars and other predatory animals and birds into rural agricultural and livestock producing areas. “Recovery” of species is protected by federal “laws” and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act. The effects of “extirpated species recovery” include economic devastation of agricultural and natural resource economies, restrictions on business, industrial growth, housing, and road construction, and the political, social and cultural disintegration or restructuring of rural communities in favor of ‘benign’, consumptive, non-productive activities such as “eco-tourism” and “heritage tourism.” In 1999, Foreman agreed to speak at a conference held at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, to “initiate the Appalachian Wildlands Preserve Project…because he is excited about a wildlands recovery and restoration program in Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay Region, the Appalachian Wildlands Preserve-Maryland Project.” On February 1st of this year, one of the largest gatherings of eco-extremists assembled at State College, Pennsylvania for their second meeting, called the “Prospects for Recovery and Rewilding” (of Pa.) sponsored by the Pennsylvania Wildlands Recovery Project (PWRP). In West Virginia, “The Wilderness Society is bringing its grassroots, analytical and policy skills to work with local partner organizations with three goals in mind: acquire new lands to expand the [Monongahela] National Forest; achieve additional wilderness protection; and, promote ecologically based management of the Monongahela…” Partners include the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Trout Unlimited. By the end of 2003, The Nature Conservancy plans to raise $12 million to acquire or obtain conservation easements to “unique ecosystems” in or near Canaan Valley, Dolly Sods, Cheat Mountain, the Shavers Fork Watershed, the Greenbrier Valley and the Smoke Hole Canyon-North Fork Mountain Bio-reserve. “During its 40-year history in West Virginia, The Nature Conservancy has protected more than 100,000 acres, most of which have been turned over to appropriate federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”, according to staff writer Rick Steelhammer, Charleston Sunday Gazette Mail.(emphasis added) In 1994, The National Biological Survey (NBS) joined “with federal, state and private organizations to improve the understanding of ecosystems in the southern Appalachian region…at a meeting of the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative (SAMAB), a partnership of federal and state government agencies founded to further conservation and development of the natural, cultural, and economic resources within portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and Alabama. The SAMAB consortium represents one of forty-seven ‘biosphere reserves’ in the United States...organized under the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Programs. Biosphere reserves generally contain a core protected area surrounded by areas with greater human use. SAMAB is the only regional biosphere reserve program recognized by both UNESCO and the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program.”(emphasis added) SAMAB membership includes the National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and a private non-profit foundation with representation from Chevron, Georgia Power, Duke Power, and regional universities. The region contains huge coal, gas and timber resources. Henry Lamb reports in a recent WorldNetDaily article, “The Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve was designated in 1988 as the 517,000-acre Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Today, the U.N. lists this reserve as 36,727,139 acres, with the zone of cooperation reaching from Birmingham, Ala., to Roanoke, Va. Neither Congress, nor the legislatures of any of the affected states, debated or approved the designation or the management plan.” (emphasis added) TWP officially “seek[s] partnerships with grassroots and national conservation organizations, government agencies, indigenous peoples, private landowners, and with naturalists, scientists, and conservationists across the continent to create networks of wildlands from Central America to Alaska and from Nova Scotia to California… [to] support the repatriation of top predators where they have been extirpated from present and future wilderness areas and national parks… [support] the designation of new conservation areas…establish large areas of wild habitat where plants and animals are unrestrained, where native species thrive…”
International agencies, such as the IUCN, UNEP, UNDP, UNESCO and other United Nations agencies have developed interlinking relationships with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the EPA and other federal agencies. Together they make private determinations, agreements and “Memorandums of Understanding” with the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Society of Conservation Biology and other so-called “private conservation groups” who in turn implement the radical UN agenda to subvert national, state and local sovereignty—with American funding, but without the knowledge and consent of Congress, states and county governments, or the communities and people who are affected. The Marxist U.N. land control doctrine for America was set out in the 1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I): Land “…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes...Public control of land use is therefore indispensable…” The socialist/fascist principles are clearly spelled out in that document: “Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of…achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development…governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land…Change in the use of land…should be subject to public control and regulation [for]…the common good.” The Delmarva Conservation Corridor Initiative Program is promoted as being designed to enhance “economically viable agriculture”, “maintain a cohesive and well-functioning ecosystem”, and “to promote, administer, and coordinate US Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs… Conservation programs for consideration include the Farmland Protection Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, the Forestry Incentives Program, and others… Farmland is disappearing at an alarming rate, and important wildlife habitat is vanishing.” “This has been a collaborative effort by dedicated officials in three states who have come together to try and address some of the challenges that face us,” Gilchrest said. “They’ve come up with an innovative, multi-faceted approach that is comprehensive and bold.” (emphasis added) Gilchrest said he hopes USDA will act on his $500,000,000 funding proposal this fall, with funding available after October 1st, 2003. The true goal of the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Initiative is control. Acquisition and control of land and natural resources, including “human resources”, by government and multi-national corporate interests is clear evidence of the prevailing totalitarian/fascist philosophy in America’s political power centers. As private ownership and control of land is subverted, Americans are being transformed into mere serfs subject to the whim of the ruling internationalist oligarchy. When government owns the land, or controlling interests therein, such as Conservation Easements, it manages the land and the people for the benefit of the ruling elite. It decides what crops to grow, which products to manufacture, who will be permitted to hunt and fish, who will be permitted or required to labor, who will be fed, how much they will be paid and where they will be permitted to live. “Food is Power! We use it to control behavior. Some may call it bribery. We do not apologize,” stated Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, speaking at the UN World Food Summit, November, 1996. The U.N. vision of natural resource control, being implemented in Delmarva by The Wildlands Project clone, the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Initiative, is diametrically opposed the Founders’ vision of individual Liberty and private ownership of America’s land and resources. The scheme is prohibited by Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, yet men such as Congressman Gilchrest ignore the Constitution. Wittingly or unwittingly they are participants in a carefully-crafted, criminal “protection” racket. Thomas Paine observed, “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.” Paine also stated, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” To many, it may seem much easier to accept the fatigue of state-imposed, mindless serfdom. Today, Americans have a choice. Tomorrow, there may be none. © September, 2003, The Virginia Land Rights Coalition, L. M. Schwartz, Chairman POB 85, McDowell, Virginia FOC 24458 540-396-6217 |