Posted on 03/16/2002 2:23:49 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Few people know – including most congressmen – that the management of 73,270,583 acres of the United States is determined by 34 non-Americans, who are elected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This land – larger than Tennessee and Kentucky combined – is distributed in 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves, managed according to principles and guidelines established by the Man and the Biosphere International Coordinating Council, and set forth in the "Seville Strategy" and the "Statutory Framework."
The U.S. Biosphere Reserves are a small part of a global network of 411 similar reserves, which are the starting point for the implementation of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.
Each Biosphere Reserve consists of a "core wilderness" area, surrounded by a buffer zone, managed for conservation objectives – both of which are surrounded by an "outer" buffer zone, also called a "zone of cooperation." The function of a Biosphere Reserve is to continually expand, and to eventually "connect" with each other through "corridors" of wilderness.
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.
At the first meeting of the delegates to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Peter Bridgewater, then-chairman of the MAB Council, offered the network of Biosphere Reserves as the beginning of implementation for the Convention. The United States has not ratified this treaty. Nevertheless, our land is being managed as if we were a party to the treaty.
The ultimate objective is to convert as much as half of the land area of the United States to "core wilderness areas," which are off-limits to humans, with government management of most of the remaining land "for conservation objectives." This leaves only "sustainable communities" for people, which are described by Science magazine as "islands of human habitat surrounded by wilderness."
This scenario is not idle speculation. The plan is well documented in the 1,140-page U.N. publication Global Biodiversity Assessment, which names "The Wildlands Project" as central to the management scheme required by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Wildlands Project, developed by Dr. Reed F. Noss, under contract with The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, calls for "at least half" of the lower 48 states to be set aside as wilderness. Through an incredibly well-orchestrated campaign, hundreds of foundation-funded so-called environmental organizations, assisted by federal and state agency personnel are working to see that land is converted to wilderness, corridors to connect the wilderness areas are developed, and regulations are put into place to control the use of "buffer zones." Still, there has been no congressional debate or approval of this land management regime.
Congress has looked only at small segments of the land management regime in isolation – never at the total picture as described in the "Seville Strategy," the "Statutory Framework," the "Global Biodiversity Assessment" or the "Wildlands Project." Consequently, the nation's land is being transformed into a utopian vision conceived by a handful of international socialists.
Just as the nest of environmental extremists have worked to expand the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, another nest is working to expand "Yellowstone to Yukon," an area that contains several Biosphere Reserves, and seeks to control all the land between Utah and Alaska.
When the New World Mine was on the brink of satisfying more than $33 million in permit requirements, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, with assistance from the Clinton administration, called upon UNESCO to declare Yellowstone to be "in danger" and thereby triggered regulatory authority to stop the mining operation, even though it was on private property.
The Mexican-border area is also a hot-spot of expansion for U.N. Biosphere Reserves, including a border region that reaches 62 miles on either side of the border. A major goal here is to eventually eliminate the border altogether. Development activity in the region that utilizes federal or international funds must be approved by a committee of un-elected environmentalists and agency bureaucrats.
Environmental extremists think this situation is wonderful. They have been working for years to achieve this result. Far too few people – including congressmen – are even aware of the transformation, and don't want to be bothered by the evidence. Therefore, day by day, our land of the free is being transformed into the land of government control.
By 1976, the United Nations was ready to articulate a general policy on land use. This policy is stated in the final report of the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), held in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.
The preamble to the section on Land, says:
"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. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."
"Critical Habitat," authorized under the Endangered Species Act, has become a favorite device for government control of private property. Nearly 2,000 species have been listed as endangered or threatened; government has only to declare an area to be "critical" to the species, then the government can dictate how the land may be used.
All of these measures work together to achieve the original goal of the Man and the Biosphere Program: to conserve most of the planet for wildlife, forcing people into "sustainable communities." This objective has now been codified into international law in the form of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The IUCN, author of this concept, also devised Agenda 21, adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 at the U.N. conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21 is a laundry list of recommendations designed to reorganize society around the central principle of protecting the environment.
If you have any questions about Agenda 21, ask Carry_Okie. He is an EXPERT WITNESS.
Neither Congress, nor the legislatures of any of the affected states, debated or approved the designation or the management plan.
The United States has not ratified this treaty. Nevertheless, our land is being managed as if we were a party to the treaty.
UNESCO to declare Yellowstone to be "in danger" and thereby triggered regulatory authority to stop the mining operation, even though it was on private property.
The Mexican-border area is also a hot-spot of expansion for U.N. Biosphere Reserves, including a border region that reaches 62 miles on either side of the border.
The United Nations has an enormous foot fall in the United States, a Quiet Invasion of our Sovereignty. Get the United Nations name OFF the signs at Yellowstone, The Great Smokies National Park and all the other parks. Go here to read about Boarders XX1
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/ef.htm
Copy and send to your congressmen and senators. Ask them to tell you how much money has been allocated for this project over the years. They probably will not have an answer as much of the Boarders XX1 money is given to UN agencies like UNESCO, NAFTA, 'though my Congressman Jim Kolbe says NAFTA is not involved here; it is. Ranching friends, who have been adversely affected by the Rio Grande treaties, say the Colonies (little shanty towns) along the corridor that were supposed to receive water, sewers, and electricity, have not! Where did the money go???
Join Henry Lamb and help to stop the United Nations; We are a Sovereign Nation and these lands are solely our responsibility using our tax dollars. When you vote in November, be sure you know where your man/woman stands on the EPA and the United Nations. If they are PRO these programs, don't let them in office! Is it any wonder that we cannot stop the illegal traffic from all over the globe from entering the United States? This Land is Your Land...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
YowZah! First plank of the Communist Manifesto!
Knew I had seen that somewhere in my studies.
Wake up America!
http://www.freedom.org/wtc/
Or write your own letter reminding our President these programs take much needed money from American workers; provides for open borders which diminishes the security of our nation. We fought King George to be able to own land and these liberal nuts don't want you to be able to.
Elk calf numbers at historic low
The cow-to-calf ratio in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is at its lowest level in at least 34 years, according to a recent survey.
The ratio counted in a Feb. 27-28 survey by state and federal wildlife biologists was 14 calves to every 100 cows. About 30 calves per 100 cows is considered necessary to sustain an elk population and in 2001 there were 29 calves to 100 elk, according to Tom Lemke, a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife biologist in Livingston.
The average ratio since 1968 has been 33 calves to every 100 cows.
Overall the herd size, of about 12,000 animals, is within the normal population range, Lemke said.
"We knew the pregnancy rates were down last spring," Lemke said. "We've seen this before when there are severe winters. What we haven't had to deal with in the past 20 to 30 years is the effects of a significant drought on wildlife," Lemke said.
Lemke said elk can naturally abort during a severe winter so they have a better chance of survival. He speculated that in drought years that same natural aborting factor might kick in because the cows can't get good forage before winter.
Lemke said wolf predation can also contribute to lower calf numbers, but it is hard to determine if wolves or the drought is the prime cause of this year's low calf numbers.
Rep. Joe Balyeat, R-Belgrade, said that while the drought probably played a part in the calf decline, most of the blame should be laid in the jaws of wolves.
"The 34-year average of 33 calves per hundred cows included many drought years," Balyeat said. "The only thing that has changed in those 34 years was the introduction of wolves."
- By Paula Clawson, Enterprise Staff Writer
The same UN plan being implemented in bits and pieces by all levels of our government. I'm sure most of those doing the implementing have no idea what they are doing to this great country of ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.