Protection for Northern Rockies ecosystems.

Here’s some public-lands news you probably won’t read in the pages of the NYT or WaPo.  It might not make the local news either.  The following is today’s press release from House and Senate sponsors.   H.R. 2135 in the House,  the Senate bill is S. 936.

– sk

Reps. Maloney, Grijalva and Sen. Whitehouse Introduce Legislation to Protect Pristine Northern Rockies Ecosystem

WASHINGTON – To protect a major pristine ecosystem in the Northern Rockies that is currently under threat from logging and other industrial activities, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-12) and House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3), along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), introduced the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA) today in both the House and Senate. The bill would designate 23 million acres of America’s premiere road-less lands in five states; Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon and Washington, as permanent wilderness. It would also designate nearly 1,800 miles of rivers and streams as wild and scenic rivers.

For the first time, NREPA has been introduced with companion legislation in the Senate.

“The Northern Rockies are a rich ecosystem and a national treasure. They are worthy of our country’s highest protective status for wildlands,” said Congresswoman Maloney. “This land should be designated as permanent wilderness. NREPA will protect natural biological corridors and connect whole ecosystems. It would save taxpayers money by eliminating wasteful subsidies to the logging industry, and create thousands of new jobs, restoring over 1 million acres of damaged habitat and watershed.”

“The Northern Rockies are one of the world’s great natural wonders, and they need long-term preservation now more than ever,” said Ranking Member Grijalva. “As an environmental champion, Sen. Whitehouse understands the value of establishing these wilderness areas, and I’m proud to lead this effort with him and Rep. Maloney. Leaving these beautiful open spaces vulnerable to extraction and development would be an unforgivable mistake. This bill, as it has been for years, is the right way to protect them.”

“Our forests and rivers are key to our health and wellbeing. They are also engines of our economy,” said Sen. Whitehouse. “This bill would preserve these wild places for future generations and safeguard critical habitat for threatened species. I am glad to join Representatives Maloney and Grijalva in reintroducing it.”

Mike Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies said, “The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act will create jobs by restoring old clearcuts, save taxpayers money by reducing subsidized logging, and protect habitat for native species by declaring as wilderness all of the roadless areas in the Northern Rockies.”

Grizzly bears, caribou, elk, bison, wolves, bull trout and salmon still thrive in the Northern Rockies. The bill seeks to safeguard both these species and the lands on which they live.

According to a 2003 study, NREPA would save taxpayers $245 million over a ten-year period by managing the land as wilderness. Additionally, more than 2,300 jobs would be created in the region through NREPA’s program to restore Northern Rockies habitats to their natural state.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act:

  • Designates as wilderness more than 23 million acres of ecosystems and watersheds in the Northern Rockies;
  • Connects natural, biological corridors, ensuring the continued existence of native plants and animals and mitigating the effects of global warming;
  • Restores habitat that has been severely damaged from roads that were built, creating more than 2,300 jobs and leading to a more sustainable economic base in the region;
  • Keeps water available for ranchers and farmers downstream until it is most needed; and
  • Eliminates subsidized development in the designated wilderness areas, saving taxpayers $245 million over a 10-year period.

###

This entry was posted in The usual. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Protection for Northern Rockies ecosystems.

  1. wanda says:

    It’s all about Agenda 21 and growing government.

    Like

    • Marguerite says:

      @wanda: I totally agree. Government takeover of as much land as possible. I work with private landowners who protect and cherish their own land – every time the Feds stick in their big noses, nothing but red tape and toil and trouble. We are always getting letters from govt agencies who want to come onto the private property and inspect for endangered species or do some kind of study. We should all be concerned about protecting the ecosystem and what better way than to start locally. Along with all this “protection” from our overlords comes increased regulations and laws and rules…as if the locals or the State itself can’t handle its own affairs. I had a friend who was accused by Feds of messing with a wetland on his ranch when all it was, was a puddle. I am sorry if I am suspicious of all this supposed good deed intentions on the part of govt representatives. I noticed that this bill has been “re-introduced”. What happened first go round?

      Liked by 1 person

      • steve kelly says:

        There is no private land in H.R. 2135 or S. 936. This land already belongs to all of us, and is managed by the federal government. There is no wetlands provision in the bill. Ironically, you are supporting the USFS-USDA and BLM when you oppose this legislation. This is a product of grassroots advocacy, conservation biology and sound economic principles. Always remain suspicious, but it’s always best to do your own research before leaping into something.

        Like

        • wanda says:

          Oh… this is all about [govt. scripted words] and [more govt. scripted words] and i am supporting a bunch of CAPITAL LETTERS? Whore-sh*t… but i do know what the govt has done, what their plans are and they are big enough… they need to go away. They screw things up and it takes us forever to whine, cajole and beg them to change it… and then they do fix it.. they fix it real good. What did “legalizing” pot do for us? Empty the prisons… nope. It only gave the government the right to tax and control it… it should have been decriminalized. And i will only support the US Govt. when they become transparent and accountable. 6 million per day for the fraud of NASA says enough… they are a criminal cartel.

          Like

          • JC says:

            Wilderness designation protects wildlands from government excess and abuse. It is the most conservative approach to land management — basically hands off, let natural process reign.

            If nothing else, the government-is-always-wrong/privatization elements will always rear their heads and reveal their true agendas during a wilderness debate.

            Those of us in the wilderness trenches realize that the longer roadless lands stay the way they are, the better chance the planet has to recover once the cancer of parasitic capitalism disappears.

            Like

          • wanda says:

            Again… Agenda 21. Eventually, it will be all about protecting the wildlife from the humans. Big picture thinking is needed.

            Like

          • JC says:

            Big picture thinking? Like a healthy dose of Malthusianism?

            Like

          • Marguerite says:

            @wanda, I am with you. Little do people know that we are already a vassal of the UN. I love and honor the environment as the next person, but I believe we are already at a place where TBTB and our own govt representatives (beholden to the overlords) and the UN (the arm of the overlords) view people as discardable and expendable. Otherwise why would we have big property owner Ted Turner and that “vaccine humanitarian” bill gates clamoring for population reduction. Mouthpieces for an elite agenda – that’s all they are.
            I agree that big picture thinking is needed, yet if Montana and other states are happy with their relationship with this wilderness designation, then good luck to them. I hope it’s as warm, fuzzy and wonderful as they say it is.
            I like your thinking and glad you weighed in.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Marguerite says:

            Malthusianism from JC. Ha ha, I had to look that one up.

            Wanda is rightfully suspicious and why shouldn’t she be? God only knows through this blog alone we are given scant reasons to trust the govt-media-complex.

            Now I really do need to go – it’s hard work trying to save the planet from parasitic capitalism. There’s some public lands next door and I think they could use some more regulation.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. steve kelly says:

    Actually, quite the oppposite. Leaving untrammelled public forest alone is the least-cost per acre, lowest number of government employees, and smallest USFS-USDA annual budget of all the “management” alternatives.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Protection of the commons is something government can do, that the private sector cannot, by definition.

      Like

    • JC says:

      I think some of the people here actually think that your posting the press release is a negative statement, Steve. The values of wilderness and biodiversity have really sunk into the background noise in all the furor over the elites battle for hegemony. Great to see NREPA’s early introduction, and into both chambers this session! Who woulda thunk that 25+ years ago, we’d be where we are today?! The endurance of NREPA as the benchmark against which all other wilderness legislation can be measured in the northern rockies is a testament to its analytical background, broad support and commitment to land preservation and intrinsic (not political) values.

      Like

  3. Big Swede says:

    Nice to see lawmakers from AZ, NY, and RI tell us here in the northern rockies what to do with our public lands.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marguerite says:

      @big swede: exactly

      Liked by 1 person

    • JC says:

      Classic response, Swede! You’re forgetting that public in “pubic lands” means all the public, including those from AZ, NY and RI. Of course, I expect that people in the various states will claim some sort of superiority in management of those lands, which really is nothing more than a precursor to privatization.

      Like

  4. steve kelly says:

    This is national-interest legislation. No one acre of state lands, or “school trust” lands are involved in this legislation.

    National public lands belong to all Americans equally. For my “conservative” friends, may I recommend another look at Orwell’s allegory, “Animal Farm.” It was Napolian, as I recall, who changed The 7 Commandments to read: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” I know how hard this is for Randians and some from the “libertarian-right” to grasp, but states, and residents of states, with federally-managed, public land have no greater right or claim to national, public lands than any other American citizen in good standing.

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      So turning all public lands into Buffalo commons won’t effect the locals? Won’t diminish taxes? Won’t effect employment? Won’t cause Montanans to leave in search of better jobs elsewhere? Won’t cause funding shortfalls for educating children?

      Like

  5. steve kelly says:

    Swede,
    Try again. This has absolutely nothing to do with “Buffalo commons.” Read the post, read the bill if you want to argue intelligently, but your tendency to conflate is useless to this discussion IMO.

    Like

    • Marguerite says:

      Can arguments in defense of what you passionately support be possibly presented without personal insults. Your response to Big Swede has some holier than thou attitude. He needs to do such and such so he can “argue intelligently” and he’s labeled with a “tendency to conflate”. Oh man , if you were asking for my vote , I might have to think twice. Is it so hard to be nice? I did not see Big Swede dropping personal insults. What’s useless to this discussion is taking passive-aggressive jabs at others.

      Hey Big Swede, don’t let ‘me get you down and if your name describes you accurately, then I am sure you don’t give a damn!

      Like

      • steve kelly says:

        The verb conflate comes to us from the Latin word conflare, which literally means “to blow together.” So think of using this word when you want to talk about two things getting thrown together and combined. Things that have been conflated often seem mixed up or confused, as when you conflate two different ideas, taking parts of one and parts of another to build your own Frankenstein version of things.” http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/conflate

        With all due respect, can you tell me what you or Swede have said that has anything to do with the topic of this blog entry? I know these tactics well.

        If you concede the original proposition, there’s no need to mumble on about non-germaine topics, right? If you do not, I’m happy to discuss the proposed legislation with anyone.

        “If you’d like to make a call, please, hang up and dial again.”

        Like

      • Get to know Swede a bit before you judge.

        Like

        • marguerite says:

          Ha Ha. I figured someone was going to say that!

          Like

          • I have been interacting with Swede for 11 years now and can say, quite seriously and without meaning to hurt anyone’s feelings, that every view he holds today is identical to every view he held eleven years ago. He is not swayed by the evidence or arguments, no matter how sane or rational.

            On the other hand, your comments here have been nothing less than impulsive and knee-jerk, your point being that anything done by government is done poorly. That is mindless. Attempts to reach you with a different view, that protection of the commons is indeed a proper role for government and that historically government does a credible job at this (though always under attack and infiltration by private industry) fall on deaf ears and you resort to a mantra-like argument, gubbmint bad.

            Liked by 1 person

        • marguerite says:

          @Mark: your comment below really cut to the bone and I’m not sure what I did that deserves such a slapping. I never said I was against government completely , I am simply not trustful and I think I have good reason to be. It seems to me that private industry (via the big banksters, wall street, financiers, industrialists, wealthiest families) have already taken over the government. Hey it’s the system we have in place right now so we will work with it the very best that we can. I am very fond of doing things as often as we can at the local or state level. That is all. You may be very surprised to hear that I was involved (at an administrative) level with one of the biggest conservation easements in our country – we worked with every government agency you can think of. It took years and it was painful and I’m not sure if those who put it in motion (private landowners) would do it again if given the chance (in fact they said if they knew what they were getting into, they might not have started down that path), but it’s done and there’s a big happy ending – thousands and thousands of acres protected in perpetuity. What a blessing to have been involved with that! I learn from all the comments here and yes you may think me impulsive and knee-jerky, and taking “mindless” stands but perhaps you might not rush to judgment either as you felt I did. There’s been some diverse points of views in everyone’s comments, and I’ve learned from them all and had a good time. Thanks.

          Like

          • Please read our commenting policy. You’ll see that you’ve done nothing wrong:

            We do not care what you think; we believe in exchange of ideas, even fiery exchanges. People who passionately believe things often express those things in an aggressive manner, and that can offend other people. We don’t care. This is not a nursery school. No one gets sent to the principal’s office. No one will ever be censored for passion, language, assertiveness, intelligence, or even stupidity or ignorance.

            That is your business. We leave you in peace to comment as you see fit. Yes, we think it is important to be polite, but have some fun too! We are not hall monitors.

            You expressed your ideas, I expressed my ideas on your expression of your ideas. All is well.

            I have also had years of experience dealing with government agents in public land issues. At the highest political levels, appointees to office such as Sec of Interior or head of BLM or Forest Service are mere puppets of industry. Those offices have been long bought. Senators and congressmen are charged with offering words to environmentalists and service to industry, a fine line to walk. They are paid whores.

            At the lowest levels are people with training in land management and animal management, and others who have to step in and mediate disputes between land owners and environmentalists, such as those who must deal with ranchers who lose livestock to predators, like wolves. I have always been impressed with these people and the work they do and the grief they have to take from all sides. These are the professionals who honestly care about land, animals and resources. You will not find any of them in private industry.

            Like

  6. fm says:

    To put this issue in the proper context, one should ask oneself a simple question:
    Is this a government from the people, and for the people ?
    Or is it just a veneer for an elitist circle ?
    Other posts on this page suggest the latter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JC says:

      “veneer for an elitist circle”? Is it elitist to talk about the intrinsic value of wilderness and biodiversity? Hardly. What is elitist is to hand over the public commons to private interests to maximize profits into a handful of executives and shareholders.

      Wilderness benefits all — clean air and water and wildlife habitat, and much more. While developing the land base benefits a few. Now tell me again who are the elitists?

      Like

  7. steve kelly says:

    In it’s current use by those coming from an authoritatian-right, or by some from the libertarian-right, the charge of elitism has become an all-to-common epithet. Like most epithets, a common definition is not easy to nail down. The elitist meme is one worth exploring further, not here and now, but in a separate post dedicated to those who feel victimized or excluded in some way by “an elitist circle.”

    For those who already know there is nothing more free, more liberating, more egalitarian than maintaining some small percentage of undeveloped public land where wildness and nature can be experienced, and wilderness-dependent species can persist (avoid man-made extinction) in perpetuity, I rest my case for now. For those who lack a scintilla of empathy for the future of biodiversity, wildness, native forests, natural functioning ecosystems, and, dare I say, life itself, I will try evermore to reconnect you with the God-given, natural world of which we are all a part.

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      True diversity includes man, and man’s efforts to better himself.

      Authoritarian actions would include restrictions, banishment and fines.

      Liked by 1 person

      • So Swede, is it wrong them to ban your ATV from wilderness, is that it? A free-for-all? That seems to be the ethos for those who want no land set aside for its own intrinsic value.

        Liberty is an important part of civilized society, but free-for-all is a recipe for destruction. Liberty entails responsibility and respect for values and other people. Your philosophy trashes everything in the name of selfish pursuits. You don’t grasp the concept of liberty in any real sense.

        Like

        • wanda says:

          Perhaps we have lost sight of the fact that the Government in operation today is not our government. The Trading with the Enemies Act of 1933 ensures that the Federal Government cannot do anything for the American people, that would make themselves traitors. Why does that fact always get overlooked? Anyone wishing to belittle me for thinking this way would need to show me some evidence of anything good that has come out of D.C. in the past 65 years… i can’t think of a thing.

          Like

          • JC says:

            Every wilderness designation coming out of D.C. (without hard release or other qualifying language) since the 1965 Wilderness Act was a good thing. Of course, Congress’ designations of wilderness does not actually “create” anything. It just provides a legal framework for managing and protecting existing wilderness against the encroachment of industrial recreation and resource extraction.

            Like

  8. steve kelly says:

    Anthropocentric dogma often has been used to justify unrestrained (anti-regulation) violence against the nonhuman world. Some anthropocentrism is less violent toward nonhuman life by viewing human beings as caretakers for the rest of Nature. Ecocentric or biocentric views cast human beings as “just another species.” But even this variation is no guarantee that guarantees that nonhumans will be treated as well as humans.

    This is another good topic for further inquiry. In the meantime, we are stuck in a debate of judgments, values and morality. However, in a culture dominated by short-term thinking, conspicuous consumption and self-interest these subjects are difficult and rarely discussed.

    Like

    • JC says:

      Bill Cunningham finally said something quote-worthy again the other day:

      “Recreation is the least important value of wilderness”

      In this day and age of utilitarian-driven wildland allocations and management, this discussion is needed now more than ever. As population and recreation pressures grow, and the wild land base shrinks, the inevitable clash of values grows larger.

      Once upon a time the debate over intrinsic vs. human or nonhuman values was an easy thing done around the campfire, a coffee table, in a bar or classroom, with a vast land base relatively unmolested. Today, in the 24 hour news and political cycles and impending chaos, this sort of debate has been shuffled off to dark corners in the memories of people who understood and discussed this (sure call them elites, what the hell, put down philosophizing). Current “collaboration” — a euphemism for divvying up the pork and profits — between stakeholders, none of whom understand or advocate for nonhuman or intrinsic values, has rendered the wilderness debate to one of competing human interests.

      So it is good to be reminded by Cunningham that recreation (and all other human uses) are the least important values of wilderness.

      Like

  9. Comments are at 33, so naturally, we need one more. And i never set out to hurt feelings and always feel bad when I do, but I was quite surprised at the anti-wilderness banter in this room, having spent so much of my life fighting for it, nothing, of course, compared to our friend Steve K. We are not elitists, we know nothing of “Agenda 21,” we simply know that some parts of our world need to be, as much as possible, left free of the human footprint. We have these lands, for whatever reason set aside in 1964 to be left alone. The pressure to open them up to ATVs and dirt bikes and snowmobiles and helicopters is unrelenting, and those that want these things always have the same reasoning … that humans come first, and many humans are too old, too obese, too soft or generally unable to endure the rigors of getting into these lands. Ergo, open them up to motorized access, and ergo, poof!, they are gone.

    At age 67 I do not go places I used to go. I cannot hike deep into the Beartooths with a forty pound pack anymore, I am resigned now to dayhiking. Those areas are inaccessible to me too. So be it. It is only important for me to know they are there. I have seen them, they are fantastic. If you are able, go there. If not, just appreciate, like I do now, that we have them still. It is some kind of miracle, or more likely people like Steve, who made it so.

    Like

  10. Well maybe we can bump it up to 47 with some effort. You are quite right about the ATV’s spoiling much of the natural ambiance. As a cyclist, rock climber, and all around camping enthusiast, I would be the first to agree that it would be better without them. But there is a resonating thought that I can’t get rid of which says that nothing is as advertised. It has turned out to be a well hidden fraud so many times that my natural skepticism kicks in. It is my hope that the Salmon river breaks stays as it is for ever. But what is the catch? There has to be one. I just haven’t figured it out yet. My gut says that anything with momentum behind it outs itself. Color me jaded I guess.

    Like

    • steve kelly says:

      “Momentum” has never been on the side of wilderness protection. A tiny fraction has been designated by Congress. Another tiny fraction remains wilderness in character, but has not yet been decided — save it or make it like Ohio or Indiana (random choices)?

      NREPA was first introduced in the House in 1992. It took 24 years to get it introduced in the Senate. The catch is: Congress generally hates anything that impedes “commerce,” regardless of the ecological downside/”cost.” This is why Austrian and Keynesian economics are both useless in today’s ever-shrinking natural world. I’m afraid The Mo is with The Great Orange GoogaMooga and friends.

      Like

    • Some things are as advertised. The “agenda” for wilderness is just what it says, to leave some areas untrammeled. There’s no money to be made other than the unintended consequences of wilderness, that it tends to enhance the economic well being of areas around it. But if you want to understand true environmentalists who fight for this sort of thing, understand only one thing: They have very little money. They only survive by sheer cleverness and being right when confronting industry and Forest Service in courts.

      Of course there are fake groups that are mere industry fronts, like Montana Wilderness Association locally and Sierra, Defenders of Wildlife, and many others nationally. These groups are well funded … by industry. Steve’s group, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, is the real deal.

      Like

  11. Jack33 says:

    Sounds like the first stages of Agenda 21.

    I also can’t help but think their secretely monitoring and covering up the exsistance of large bipedal hominids living in those parts and that this may have something to do with what’s going on there.

    Call me crazy, but seeing is believing.

    Like

    • Funny you should mention the pipedal ones Jack. I am one of the few ( well maybe not so few ) ones to see one up close. This is one of the main reasons why I want the Salmon Breaks to be left alone. But nobody believes me anyway so I keep it to myself unless I meet one of the other fortunate ones.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. wanda says:

    For what it’s worth, you can’t find much about this on line, i spent an hour or so on it before i bagged it… but i did find this… a point of view from the people it will impact. I had to copy and paste because it does not have its own dedicated page…

    Opposition to federal land grab builds in Wyoming
    Posted on February 11, 2010 by Quallurce
    Opposition to a New York City-led grab of Western land is building in Wyoming.

    The Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution at their Jan. 19 meeting expressing their opposition to the deceptively-named “Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act.”

    Sponsored by radical New York City Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the NREPA (H.R. 980) has been sought by radical environmentalists for decades, as it would classify millions of acres of publicly-accessible Western land as “wilderness” and place it under federal control and off-limits to the public.

    It is part of a larger plan to shut down energy development and timber harvesting by declaring millions of acres of land federal property, and then outlaw such activity on those federal lands. Under the NREPA 24 million acres of land in five states would be placed under federal control.

    In Wyoming alone, NREPA would make it illegal to set foot on five million acres of land.

    “The Act will have the effect of eliminating multiple uses of lands currently used for grazing, vegetation management for purposes of forest health issues such as reduction of fire fuels and removal of bark beetle infected trees, camping, motorized recreation, timber production, enhancement of aspen stands for elk habitat, mineral exploration and other multiple uses,” reads the Hot Springs County resolution. “The loss of jobs and multiple use of the land will negatively impact the economy of the County and quality of life of the citizens who live in Hot Springs County.”

    The resolution calls on Congress to defeat the NREPA, currently in the House Natural Resources Committee. Copies of the resolution were sent to Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis.

    Wyoming’s State House of Representatives is also considering a resolution asking the Natural Resources Committee to defeat the bill. House Joint Resolution 8 points out “the continuance of all multiple use activities, including motorized recreation, outfitting, grazing, timber harvesting activities and energy development is crucial to the long term economic diversity of all Wyoming counties and the State of Wyoming.”

    In a hearing posted on YouTube, Rep. Lummis grilled Rep. Maloney over the bill, pointing out how it will destroy local economies, and how nearly all of the congressional support comes from politicians not in the effected states.
    source: http://americantradition.org/2010/02/

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      Thanks Wanda for digging that one up even though there’e no mention of Buffalo commons.

      Vindication for my previous comments.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Big Swede says:

        The rationing society, Sultan Knish – We have become a rationing society. Our industries and our people are literally starving in the midst of plenty. Farmers are kept from farming, factories are kept from producing and businessmen are kept from creating new companies and jobs. This is done in the name of a variety of moral arguments, ranging from caring for the less fortunate to saving the planet. In a production society, people compete for production. In a rationing society, people compete for entitlements. Everyone is always bitter and suspicious in a rationing society. The rationing society deliberately cultivates a sense of unfairness to make it clear that individual efforts are meaningless and the only thing that matters is one’s connections to the rationers.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. steve kelly says:

    It doesn’t get much more corporate than American Tradition Partnership, where this propaganda originated. Ever been to Wyoming? Or Washington D.C.? Please consider your source, no matter how much it supports confirmation bias against environmentalists, a clean environment, or naturally-functioning ecosystems. ATP exists under the sole authority of the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s Citizens United decision. You want unlimited, undisclosed funding of elections and “political speech” by the world’s largest multi-national corporations, you’ve got it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition_Partnership

    Like

    • wanda says:

      It’s all propaganda, isn’t it? I get the impression, however, you don’t mean it in the good way. I read the Wiki entry about ATP and don’t find much disparaging information in there, despite Wiki’s best efforts. It is well known that Wikipedia might as well be the Mainstream Media when it comes to serving the interests of the Globalists… and for all we know, ATP could be controlled opposition. I see no indication from the ATP article i pasted that the Hot Springs County Resolution was in any way connected to the ATP and the ATP could just be romancing them… i don’t know, do you? Perhaps ATP is only guilty of not having the deep pockets of billionaire industrialists, a dedicated media complex and tax payer dollars.

      If we wish to compare apples to lemons, let’s have a look at how Wiki downplays the role of Agenda 21… QUOTE: Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development, END QUOTE Sounds pretty tame. Morph City defines Agenda 21 as such: Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development, and was created through the United Nations. It is the blueprint for depopulation and total control, under the banner of saving the environment. It is like the head of a beast that has thousands of tentacles, originating from the United Nations. The 3 primary tools that are used are: Man-made global warming – Water shortages – Endangered Species Act.

      Another comparison… ICLEI – a counterpart to the UN’s Agenda 21 – Wiki QUOTE: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is an international association of local governments and national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development.

      ICLEI, when implemented (it is implemented), creates new local laws and city planning requirements that restrict economic development and personal freedom. Some examples include:
      -Crowding and high-rise, high density housing scams
      -Water usage restrictions wherein violations could result in fines, and there are programs for people to rat on their neighbors
      -Monitoring business and individuals’ energy usage. Many new buildings have thermostats that are controlled remotely, offsite.

      Speaking for myself, i am more inclined to believe Morph City, here’s a link: http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21

      Lastly, if we think the UN is love and sunshine… we best give it another thought or two..
      Here is your Test Question for today: What is the UN?
      All those who answered, “Why, the United Nations, of course.” — get an “F” and go to the back of the line.

      The “UN” is a corporation founded in France several years before the United Nations Charter was ever created. And here, for your edification, are the Principal Parties of Interest driving the “UN Agenda”—–

      Current version UN Corp dba World Bank dba FEDERAL RESERVE — 52% owned by Rothschild Bank of London and Berlin; 8% owned by Lazard Freres Bank of Paris; 8% owned by Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, 8% owned by Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; 6% owned by Lehman Brothers of New York; 6% owned by Kuhn Loeb of New York; 6% owned by Chase Manhattan/Rockefeller Bank of New York; 6% owned by Goldman Sachs.

      (There may be some changes in ownership(s) since this list was compiled, but the above is accurate for the most part.) Source: http://www.paulstramer.net/…/what-is-un-probably-not-what-y…

      Like

      • fm says:

        Well, thanks Wanda for the interesting information, didn’t know that.
        However, the supposed “United Nations” reputation was already at rock-bottom in my eyes before, so it could not sink any deeper …

        Like

      • Wanda, the link in your comment appears not to work. The article you link to, though, originally came from the website: http://annavonreitz.com/whatistheun.pdf .

        This woman—Anna von Reitz—presents herself as a judge in Alaska. But she is not nor ever was. So already she is suspect, along with all her writings. She offer no citations in that article, so one has no way to corroborate her claims.

        I am not disagreeing with you about the venality of the United Nations. But by accepting any Internet claim uncritically, you play right into the hands of a psy-op. I am beginning to think that all of the “sovereign citizen” rhetoric is just that: an elaborate ruse to snare the earnest but uncritical in a web of legal jargon.

        Like

        • wanda says:

          I am not advocating Anna Von Rietz… or the sovereign movement, although, government as we know it today is a den of vipers. I just found the UN information interesting and it is built on land donated by Rockefeller.

          Like

          • fm says:

            And I don’t care it is a corporation or not. It stays the same evil entity, with the same shady figures at the helm.
            Just consider the UN Security Council and it’s members. Or the fact that the UN is still de facto at war with Germany.
            I agree with Ken at redefininggod.com, the UN will be the front figure of the pushed NWO.

            Like

          • wanda says:

            To me, it does matter if it’s a corporation… if corporations are people now, where’s that leave the average man on the street? You’d have to be a fool not to realize there are humans behind those corporations, so something much more sinister is at play. I came across a blog some time back claiming all government departments are listed in the phone book as corporations, such as the FBI, IRS, CIA, etc. and i’ve been wracking my mind trying to relocate that. They are disappearing information now… if hindsight were 20/20, i’d have a terra byte ot two of stored data, Given enough time, the only history future generations will have access to is fabricated.

            I strongly suspect our current government is run by the staff of Saturday Night Live. Can anyone, with a straight face, truly believe Trump is not a man in costume? How can a man, clearly wearing a costume of sorts, run a nation? Yet we vote… we vote in spite of the fact that politicians are liars and thieves and in spite of the fact they’ve not worked for us since inception. This is somewhat off topic, but have a look at this… this lends new meaning to the term “acting President”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfTHsc1FWuM

            I have another one that shows clear shenanigans going on with VP Pence… but won’t post it in this comment for fear it will wind up in the spam folder.

            Like

  14. Wanda, I have lived my entire life around these scare stories about UN initiatives being the work of the devil, and even took them seriously as a younger man. There is, of course, a push toward world government, but the funny thing is that it is probably already in place, and that the UN has very little to do with it. That is normally the course, to warn us of things already done, to get us into pitched battles of no consequence. We would not know of ATP if it were a real threat any more than we would ever have heard of the Koch Brothers.

    I am a product of Montana environmental politics, and know Steve and his group of firebrands are an anathema to professional environmental groups, those on the payroll of Pew and other industrial fortunes, controlled opposition. There is a sprinkling of democratic governance in our land, and it is demonized whenever apparent. It is courageous citizens battening entrenched money and power by means of wits and intelligence. I view AWR as such a group.

    Like

    • wanda says:

      Mark… have a look at this map of Federal land use… http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

      Like

      • Where do you live? Of course I know about this. “Federal lands” are stratified, the highest being awarded National Park or monument status. These lands are to be preserved but made accessible to the general public. Beaneath that is wilderness, land that is to be preserved and for which accessibility is not a high priority. Then comes National Forest, land managed for its resources, and generally run roughshod over by industry. This is where the pitched battles are fought. Beneath that is BLM land, not thought of as valuable, often used for grazing, often enough land given over to the government because private landowners could make no use of it.

        It is very difficult to privatize National Parks and Wilderness. National Forest and BLM land is essentially privatized, and the 1872 Mining Law makes them all easily accessible. So the background fights are to prevent more wilderness and to subtly change the law to allow privitizaton of public lands more easily.

        Like

        • wanda says:

          I am currently in the state of New York, where i was born. Truth of the matter, and this does sound obtuse, but… i live where ever i am and i was born on earth. When we cannot trust a word out of our government officials, how can we hand them over anything and think it is going to be protected and what does that even mean when government is a protection racket? Protected for whom? Protected from whom?

          Like

          • Generally people who talk like that want to see the lands privatized. That leads to their ultimate development, or if preserved, done so with fences. Yellowstone National Park, if privatized, would now be inaccessible to all but the very wealthy.

            Like

        • steve kelly says:

          “…when you go chasing rabbits (Swede, Wanda, et al.)…”

          Like

          • wanda says:

            Oh… i see, you get to insinuate that not trusting the government is crazy or we are all wild hippies or whatever ruse you are implying. Good luck with that… i will keep my opinion on what your motives are to myself… it’s all just wild speculation anyhow. I don’t know you… so i will not stoop to such tactics… i hope to keep it on a adult level. But, i must ask, when one looks at the map of Federally controlled land, one must ask “Where’s the fire?”… why this sense of urgency that it must get done… otherwise ________ insert disaster, any disaster. As i pointed out before… we don’t know what is running our government and, imho, that is a larger and more important question.

            Like

          • fm says:

            Agree with wanda’s response.
            This website is full of crazy conspiracy nutters like Swede, Wanda, and me for sure.
            To stay sane, better turn on your TV, and watch Fox/CNN …

            Like

      • fm says:

        Still, governmental organization or corporation, it does not make a difference for me.
        It boils down to one question: does a “government” has a legitimate claim on you as person, just because you were born on it’s territory, or are you a sovereign individual ?
        I do not accept any claim of legitimacy of any government anywhere.
        Delegating your natural rights to so-called authorities, being it peerage of divine right or “elected politicians”, is slave mindset IMHO.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. wanda says:

    This isn’t the article i was specifically looking for, but it hits the nail on the head. Watch the video, it is very informative and this comment was very poignant, even though we now suspect Anna Von Reitz is not, nor ever has been a judge, we need to pick our way gingerly through the two lips here…

    “The fundamental news that everyone has to understand is that when you incorporate ANYTHING you remove it from the jurisdiction of the land and move it into the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea. You also move it out from under the Law of the Land (including The Constitution) and place it under the Law of the Sea, instead.” – Judge Anna von reitz

    https://jhaines6a.wordpress.com/…/bombshell-proof-dhs…/

    Like

  16. So I guess the song remains the same again. The inmates are given two choices to fight over, both putting all the valuable resources permanently out of their reach.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s