SPECIAL REPORT on, the American Heritage Rivers Project, Biodiversity etc. to the Commissioners of Bonneville County.
THE UN WILDLANDS PROJECT UNLEASHES ITS WAR ON MANKIND
By Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review
FAMC, 3500 JFK Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (1-800-336-7000)
see also 2014 – 014 The Wildlands Project to control all humans and Agenda 21
“The impulse to possess turf is a powerful one for all species; yet it is one that people must overcome. sensitivity over the relationship between international responsibility and national sovereignty [is a]considerable obstacle to the leadership at the international level. Sovereignty is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” [“Report of the Commission on Global Governance,” eco-logic Magazine (publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN), January/February 1996, p.4.]
Conservative environmental scientists have known for years that global forces behind the scenes were moving toward one-world government, but it was not until recently that it was possible to see the comprehensive plan, published in an official document offered to the world, entitled Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance http://www.cgg.ch/CHAP1.html>. [Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-827997-3, 410 pages.] As evidenced by the statement quoted above, its recommendations are arrogantly bold – an indicator of the confidence the radical environmentalists have at this point about their chances for success in implementing their agenda. They are also frighteningly serious.
The plan is to convene a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998, similar to the Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Official world governance treaties are expected to come out of that conference, with the goal of worldwide implementation by the year 2000. (For information on obtaining an eye-opening article on this subject, please see the note at the end of this article.)
When radical environmentalist Dave Foreman first described his vision of a “rewilded” America in his book Confessions of an Eco Warrior, only a few grasped the radical implications of his dream. Others dismissed his vision as lunacy, aware that Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, had advocated tree-spiking, and had been convicted of conspiracy to blow up power transmission lines. But today, Foreman’s dream, known as the Wildlands Project, has transmuted to an Orwellian nightmare supported by innumerable UN agencies, embraced by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), UNESCO, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the EPA. The Sierra Club recently elected Dave Foreman to its Board of Directors, and that organization has now embraced the Wildlands Project as its major endeavor. It is being unleashed relentlessly across America.
In this special report, we are presenting the hard copy, black and white evidence of the radical environmentalists’ plan to relegate the politically powerless among the human race to limited areas set aside for human habitation in the decades ahead. The maps we have included are the product of hours of intensive research and scrutiny of scores of documents by Dr. Michael S. Coffman and the staff of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine. Data was obtained from The Biodiversity Treaty; reports prepared by the President’s Council for Sustainable Development; the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program; and The Wildlands Project.
Dr. Coffman’s research has produced an impressive body of valuable information on the agenda of the radical environmental movement to “preserve biological diversity” in the U.S. However, there are three basic benchmarks of data that the reader needs initially in order to orient himself to the whole scope of the movement: The legal framework for the plan is found in Article 8a-e of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (This is the treaty that President Clinton had already signed and that the U.S. Senate was very nearly duped into ratifying in September 1995.)
The conceptual framework for the plan is essentially the Wildlands Project. This is stated in Section 10.4.2.2.3 of the United National Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). That portion of the GBA defines the enabling and enforcement protocols for the Biodiversity Treaty, which the green movement still intends to push through the U.S.
According to the GBA, reserves would include wilderness areas and national parks while inner buffer zones would permit no agriculture, no more than 0.5 miles of road per square mile of land, primitive camping, and only light selection harvesting of forests.
The June 25, 1993 issue of Science magazine reports that the plan calls for 23.4% of the land to be put into wilderness (no human use) and 26.2% into corridors and human buffer zones (very limited use by humans).
Return to the Wilderness
The Wildlands Project is a massive program for restructuring society around nature as the organizing principle. The concept is Foreman’s, but the plan was developed by Dr. Reed Noss under grants from The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society. It was first published in Wild Earth, a publication of the Cenozoic Society, of which Foreman is chairman. Funded by the Ira Hiti Foundation for Deep Ecology, 75,000 copies of the plan were produced and distributed. The Wildlands Project was set up as a corporation with offices in Arizona and Oregon; Foreman is Chairman of the Board; Reed Noss is a Working in tandem with the Wildlands Project is the Biosphere Reserve Program, a creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The objective of the program, conceived in 1971, has been to designate sites worldwide for preservation and to protect the biodiversity of chosen sites on a global level. Toward that end, the Sierra Club has redrawn the map of North America into 21 “bioregions.”
In turn, each of the 21 bioregions has been divided into three zones:
1) Wilderness area, designated as habitat of plants and animals. Human habitation, use, or intrusion is forbidden.
(2) Buffer zones surrounding the wilderness areas. Limited, and strictly controlled, human access is permitted within this zone.
(3) Cooperation zones, the only zones where humans will be permitted to live. According to Dr. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., a strategy to implement reserves and corridors (in the northern Rockies, for example, see map on page 4 [Ed. Note: Not reproduced here; see maps at http://www.libertymatters.org/MapWild.html ]) would be to:
1) Start with a seemingly innocent-sounding program like the “World Heritage Areas in Danger.” Bring all human activity under regulation in a 14-18 million acre buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park.
2) Next, declare all federal land (except Indian reservations) as buffers, along with private land within federal administration boundaries.
3) Next, extend the U.S. Heritage corridor buffer zone concept along major river systems. Begin to convert critical federal lands and ecosystems to reserves.
4) Finally, convert all U.S. Forest Service, grasslands, and wildlife refuges to reserves. Add missing reserves and corridors so that 50 percent of landscape is preserved. [Based on United Nations World Heritage Program; United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8a-e; United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 10.4.2.2.3; U.S. Man and the Biosphere Strategic Plan (1994 draft); U.S. Heritage Corridors Program; and “The Wildlands Project,” (published in Wild Earth, Dec. 1992).
Also, see Science, “The High Cost of Biodiversity,” Vol. 280, June 25, 1993, pp.1868-1871.]
Investigative reporter Karen Lee Bixman, in her article, “The Taking of America,” states that “each of the 21 bioregions will be governed by bioregional councils. Although in its infancy stage, the setting up of such a council is taking place [now] in the south in conjunction with the Smokey Mountain National Park in Tennessee. When these councils come into play, local, state and national government will not be able to interfere with their enforcement. It will be under the strong arm of the UN. Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and other green organizations will be given the green light [to be] the enforcement arm of these councils at the local level.” [Karen Lee Bixman, “The Taking of America,” The Investigative Reporter (Huntington Beach, CA), March 1996, .3.]
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this is a radical agenda designed to control not just the land, but all human activity, as well. Under the Wildlands Project, at least 50 percent of the land area of America would be returned to “core wilderness areas” where human activity is barred. Those areas would be connected by corridors, a few miles wide. The core areas and corridors would be surrounded by “buffer zones” in which “managed” human activity would be allowed, provided that biodiversity protection is the first priority. Reed Noss’s words put it very, very plainly: “the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” [“Rewilding America,” eco-logic Magazine (Publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN),
November/December 1995, p.20.]
JUGGERNAUT OF ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT
For several decades, we have been hearing about the damage that Man has done to his environment – reports of polluted waterways, lakes, ground water, and streams have appeared in newspapers, magazines, and on television. We’ve heard scary stories about holes in the ozone layer, smog-stifled cities, polluted landfills, and carcinogens in the air we breathe. We have been warned about the abuse of Mother Earth through irresponsible mining, overzealous harvesting of forests, and irresponsible waste of resources. Concern for the state of our environment is, obviously, a valid concern. By focusing public attention on the need to control abuse of the environment through legislation and judicial enforcement of environmental law, we have come a long way in cleaning up our environment. Most Americans would probably agree that abuse of our national resources is just – well, un-American! Most would agree that protection of the environment is a responsible, worthwhile priority at every level of government, as well as among the populace at large.
That is precisely the reason that one of the most massive and well-funded juggernauts of the one-world government movement has been the radical environmental movement.
Mikhail Gorbachev stated in Moscow some time back that the threat of environmental crisis will be the “international disaster key” that will unlock the New World Order.”
[Samantha Smith, “Gorbachev Forum Highlights World Government,” The Patriot Press, Volume 3, Issue 1 (Chattanooga, TN), p. 8.] Over the past thirty years while most Americans were getting on with their lives and trusting the federal government (with congressional oversight, they assumed) to manage our parks and national resources, they were being sold down the river. A massive array of green advocacy groups and nongovernmental groups were working hand-in-hand with the United Nations to bring vast areas of this country under UN control, under the guise of “preserving the environment.”
Samantha Smith, one of the leading researchers in the country on the one-world government movement, attended Gorbachev’s State of the World Forum in San Francisco last fall, and reported that at that conference, attendees were told that an Earth Charter, a “Bill of Rights for the Planet,” will be presented to the 1997 General Assembly of the United Nations for ratification, then hopefully adopted by the year
WHAT, AND WHO, IS BEHIND THIS OBSESSION?
Operatives in the U.S.
The UN environmental agenda has been strongly supported and actively promoted by the Clinton administration. The Ecosystem Management Plan, promoted by Vice President Al Gore, calls for 50 percent of the land within the United States to be returned to wilderness. Twenty federal agencies are being used to implement this plan and the EPA is the enforcer.” [Karen Lee Bixman, “The Taking of America,” The Investigative Reporter (Huntington Beach, CA), March 1996, p. 4.]
Those who “represent” Americans in the UN today are those who are committed to diminishing national sovereignty and making individual liberties and property rights a thing of the past. Back in 1982, a bulletin of the National Association of Realtors reported that a UN policy on land use, formulated in 1976, states: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and health conditions for people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.” [“FIABCI announces major effort to change U.N. policy,” National Association of Realtors Bulletin, Volume 3, Number 23, July 12, 1982.
(Furnished through courtesy of Karen Lee Bixman, The Investigative Reporter, Huntington Beach, CA.)
By executive order, without any congressional authority, Bruce Babbitt and the Department of the Interior in September 1993 created the Office of National Biological Survey. This survey will attempt to catalog and locate every species of plant and animal in the United States. The result will be a written record for use in justifying removal of human beings from areas where “endangered species” are located.
In December 1972, UN Resolution 2997, which created the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), was adopted by the UN General Assembly. It is the catalyst for the whole movement to reorganize society under the guise of “saving the environment.” This group has remapped the whole world into bioregions, and is responsible for virtually all of the environmental policy changes that have occurred globally in the last two decades.
Their five-step action plan [“The Reorganization of Society, ” eco-logic Magazine (Publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN), September/October 1995, p. 4] as presented in UNEP documents is to:
1. Redraw land maps to differentiate biological characteristics rather than political
2. Regroup human populations into self-sustaining settlements that minimize impact on
3. Educate humans in the “gaia ethic,” which holds that Gaia is the creator of all life and all life is a part of the creator. (New World Order Religion).
4. Create a new system of governance based on local decision-making within the framework of international agreements.
5. Reduce the use of natural resources by (a) reducing population; (b) reducing consumption; and (c) shifting to “appropriate” technology.
What simpler, more effective method could there be for ultimate, absolute control of human populations than the methods that are being advanced under the banner of “environmental and biodiversity protection”? Read the list above once more. Notice who will be in control. Note that humans will be “regrouped” (relocated) in accordance with a master plan. Human populations must be “self-sustaining,” which virtually guarantees a vastly diminished standard of living, especially for western civilizations. In conjunction with that, note the emphasis on “shifting to appropriate (i.e., radically downgraded) technology.”
Notice the emphasis on the “gaia ethic” (nature worship) as the supreme “ethic” (i.e., world religion). Notice the reallocation of the powers of governance: “local decision making within the framework of international agreements.” This would effectively bypass Congress and chop the behemoth of public opposition into small, manageable pieces. Note the emphasison reduced population. Readers familiar with the radical agenda of the Cairo Conference on Population last year will remember the forcible thrust of the abortion rights agenda as a “population control” measure.
The program underway to undermine the concept of private property rights, especially in the western portion of the U.S., is ample evidence that the socialist planners behind this global agenda are implementing their program now. If unopposed, their efforts will, in time, establish by precedent the authority of prevailing governments to control the whole spectrum of human activity: reproductive rights, property rights, lifestyle, consumption, and even the level of technology permitted. It is a ghastly picture, but the evidence is mounting steadily to support the reality of what lies ahead if the global planners have their way. The primary reason that such dramatic progress toward UNEP objectives has been made in recent years is the fact that very few people have recognized that the common denominator in the whole movement is an arm of the United Nations!
NGOs: The Machinery
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) constitute the machinery that is actually driving the movement toward global governance. They organize and coordinate the agenda from the highest chambers of governance at the UN down to county commissions and city councils at the local level. That apparatus, now global in its reach, was set in motion in 1968 when UNESCO passed Resolution 1296 which granted consultative status to organizations like the Sierra Club, thus allowing them to participate in UN environmental activities. The tasks of NGOs such as the Sierra Club are quite diversified, but highly effective: agitation at local levels of government; lobbying at the national level; producing studies to justify global taxation; creating TV ads to enhance the image of the UN; devising propaganda to discredit individuals and organizations that generate “internal political pressure” or fail to support the new global ethic; and launching national media campaigns to portray dissenting voices as “right wing extremists” or “fanatics.”
According to the report of the Commission on Global Governance, 28,900 international NGOs are known to exist, and many are directly involved in promoting the agenda of global governance. The ideas spawned in the NGOs are in turn advanced by the UNEP.
Three of the most powerful NGOs are the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the World Resources
Institute (WRI). Henry Lamb, in an excellent article entitled “The Year of Decision,” made this observation: “The great danger confronting Americans is that they do not yet know that the enemy has changed uniforms, and tactics. The threat is no longer the red star and sickle painted on planes and missiles: now the threat comes from hoards of NGOs (non-government organizations) [who are] cheering the proposals pushed by international statesmen at world conferences designed to achieve with verbosity what could not be accomplished with bombs.” [Henry Lamb, “The Year of Decision,” ecologic Magazine (Publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN)] Global issues such as the Biodiversity Treaty have become the focus of domestic NGOs (of which there are close to 1,000), and they have strong national constituencies, enormous staff and funding. Even down at the lowest levels, NGOs are prepared to lobby on issues relating to a particular project under consideration by local zoning boards. These “public/private partnerships,” as they are often referred to, encourage the creation of boards or councils that supposedly represent the interests of all the “stake holders.” In reality, these boards are dominated by powerful NGOs who are well equipped to control outcomes. Heads of NGOs are often full-time professionals, paid by non-profit organizations and funded through coordinated efforts of the (Rockefeller)
Environmental Grantmakers Association or the federal government. “Stake holders” in these partnerships are people who work for a living and want to take care of the environment, but simply do not have the time to study or understand the issues and the forces that are driving them.
UNESCO and The Great Land Heist
The biggest setup for land grabs in the history of this nation occurred in November 1972, when the World Heritage Treaty (drafted by UNESCO – a non-governmental organization) was signed by Richard Nixon and ratified by Congress. It became effective late in 1975. Its primary focus is the natural heritage of lands throughout the world which they (UNESCO) contend are all endangered and threatened by social and economic conditions – i.e., by the activities of mankind. The treaty states, “Therefore, it is incumbent that the international community participate as a whole to save these heritage sites.” [Karen Lee Bixman, “The Taking of America,” The Investigative Reporter, March 1996, p. 2] Sites that qualify for protection are virtually unlimited: monuments; archaeological works; building and landscapes with historical, aesthetic or ethnological significance; geographical formations; areas of threatened habitat of animal or plant species; and natural areas of universal value from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty. And that is not even the whole list. The treaty language is so vague that property anywhere in the world can be rendered a Heritage Site if the governing committee so deems. For example, if the site is of exceptional beauty, such as The Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri, the site can be classified a Heritage Site and its use can then be proscribed or limited by groups or agencies not within our U.S. government, nor elected by the people of this country, nor accountable to them!
Swarms of GAGs
The eco-logic magazine, in its November/December 1995 issue, stated that in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, there were 7,892 certified Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) “celebrating the global sanctification of the worldwide environmental agenda.” In an article entitled “GAGs and the Global Environmental Agenda,” a writer offered this characterization of Green Advocacy Groups at work in the United States: “Like 10,000 fire ants swarming over a wounded victim, Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) scurry over America sucking tiny fragments of freedom from the remains of a once mighty republic. The venom they carry is lethal to individual liberty, fatal to free markets, and the enemy of a healthy environment even though the poison is labeled “Global Environmental Agenda.” [“GAGs and the GEA,” eco-logic (Publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN), November/December, 1995, p. 28] Green Advocacy Groups embrace the global environmental agenda as the sacred doctrine of a new global religion to which all people must convert. The invasion of “green religion” took a leap forward recently when the National Religious Partnership for the Environment mailed its propaganda to 53,000 churches in the U.S., beginning a massive campaign to bring all religions into their “temple of understanding.” Like the crusaders of an ancient time, GAGs are convinced that their mission is noble, and they despise principles, laws, and people that stand in the way of their global objectives. GAGs have organized to employ every means to achieve their objectives.
The Rockefellers’ Environmental Grantmakers Association meets each year to fund those GAGs whose programs advance the global environmental agenda. The Department of Interior, the EPA, and other government agencies supplement those funds with massive grants from the American taxpayer, thereby requiring them to subsidize the very programs that ultimately will destroy their property rights and dispense with their individual liberties. Meanwhile, a generation of brainwashed yuppies continues to contribute to such organizations in the misguided belief that they are helping the GAGs communicate through a massive electronic network; a staff of professionals informs hundreds of other GAGs when, where, and how to apply local pressure to advance their agenda. For each major global agenda item, there is a GAG assigned to coordinate the activity of other GAGs around the world. For example, Maurice Strong’s Earth Council is the coordinator (GAG) of sustainable development issues worldwide. [Strong is an admitted communist.]. Jim Rathbun, a retired U.S. Forest Service Supervisor who has monitored activity of green advocacy groups in the Northwest for years, has observed that: “This Administration has found a way to manipulate the process, those that it has allowed to participate in it, and the Congress to implement ‘ecosystem management’ in accordance with one or more of their ‘Alternative Themes’ (components of the Wildlands Project – Ed.) and not comply with the law.” [“Rewilding America,” eco-logic Magazine (Publ. By Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN), November/December 1995, p. 21]
Manipulation of the law, the courts, and local community sentiments is a typical strategy being used by GAGs to implement the Wildlands Project throughout the country. It is impossible to present, in the scope of this report, a comprehensive analysis of the GAG activity, even in the United States alone. Suffice it to say that GAGs have so infiltrated government, the media, the schools, and now the churches, that as the global agenda is presented, bit by bit, it is doubtful there will be strong defense mechanisms to resist.
Strategy: Circumvention, Administrative Fiats, Infiltration
Congress has never seen a legislative proposal to adopt the Wildlands Project. What Congress has seen is bits and pieces – incremental steps – toward the implementation of the Wildlands Project. The California Desert Protection Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments and other so-called environmental protection measures all are pieces of the overall strategy to “rewild America.” Radical environmentalists have found administrative policies to be a faster and far more effective pathway to their objectives. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Department of Interior, on its own initiative, expanded the meaning of “protected species” to include the habitat that a protected species may use. Obviously, such expansion (by fiat) of the concept of “habitat” potentially affects every inch of private property in America (probably not a concept that would have survived congressional scrutiny)!
The development of the Ecosystem Management Policy by the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency brings to bear the weight of the federal government to enforce the initiatives begun in the field by the GAGs.
Throughout the Clinton administration, key positions are filled by people who formerly were officials in the various GAGs that have promoted the rewilding of America. The infiltration of government by the GAGs doesn’t stop in Washington, however. The former head of the World Resources Institute (WRI) now heads the United National Development Program, and WRI’s current president, Jonathan Lash, is co-chair of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (set up by Bill Clinton, who is feeding us into the jaws of the Globalist tyranny…).
A relentless army of GAGs is working diligently throughout the country, supported to a very large extent by federal funding. A few members of Congress realize that the global environmental agenda is being implemented in the U.S. and are working to stop it.
However, the vast majority are still in the dark, vulnerable to the pressure from GAGs who are stepping up their efforts to influence them. What is really frightening is that several members of Congress actually support the implementation of the agenda!!!
Property owners need to be aware of GAG activity in their own communities and alert their elected representatives to the consequences of the Wildlands Project. Without a massive public outcry, the Wildlands Project will continue to crawl across the land, gobbling up our property rights, individual freedoms, and our way of life.
FROM “VISION” TO REALITY
The UNEP, the green advocacy groups (GAGs) and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) committed to the radical Agenda 21 intend to win. The implementation of their program for the radical restructuring of our society is well underway. Wherever private citizens are being robbed of their land – whether through new legislation such as the Desert Wilderness Protection Act, through land takings by the EPA, or by administrative rulings that render private land unusable by its owners – the program for redistribution and ultimate control of the human population is moving quickly from “vision” to reality.
It’s happening right now!!!
The privilege of private property ownership, one of the founding principles of this nation, is being eroded daily as the radical environmentalists work to eradicate that concept entirely from the American consciousness.
Through the use of UN treaties and administrative fiat, the American people are being robbed. We can only hope that, once armed with the facts, the American populace will rise up to reject these unconstitutional treaties and dictatorial fiats and demand legislation to safeguard property rights from the onslaughts of this fanatical movement.
NOTE: For in-depth information on the World Conference on Global Governance, readers may contact the Environmental Conservation Organization and request the January/February, 1996 issue of eco-logic Magazine: P.O. Box 191, Hollow Rock, TN 38342. Phone (901) 986-0099. Fax (901) 986-2299.
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org .
Researched and collated by :
Byron T. Weeks, MD
1435 Presto Street, #3
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
For more information on the bioregions mapping project or The Wildlands Project, readers may wish to contact Dr. Michael S. Coffman, President of Environmental
Perspectives, Inc., 1229 Broadway, Suite 313, Bangor, Maine 04401-2596. Phone (207) 945-9878, Fax (207) 942-6465.
For further documentation, see “The Wildlands Project,” Wild Earth, December 1992.
Also see Science, “The High Cost of Biodiversity,” June 25, 1993, Volume 260, pp. 1868-1871.]
Lance R. Crowe, Chairman
American Constitutional Campaign Committee 5300 Scottsville Road P.O. Box 51851 Bowling Green KY 42102-6851
Visit our web site at: