Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

It’s Time To Revisit The GNLCC for both Canada and the USA

The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us

GNLCC

It’s Time To Revisit The GNLCC

By Karen Schumacher

Some time has passed since exposing the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) and with new events it is time to take another look at just how pervasive, diabolical, and advanced this agenda has become.

As a reminder, in 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives.  Twenty two cooperatives were created in the US without any congressional authorization.  What was not previously revealed is that the Canadian government was included in these cooperatives.  As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia and western Alberta, where the same aggressive methods are being used in both countries, by the same groups and individuals, that puts land into large landscape conservation, including restricted use, for connectivity.

These cooperatives are a “regional” approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority.  Meant to be an “international network”, the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of U.S. federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives.  GNLCC members include Canadian and U.S. land trusts, Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative (Y2YI), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Crown of the Continent (COC), government agencies such as the Alberta Government, Environment Canada, British Columbia, and our own USFS, USFWS, and USGS.  These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement or consent, or congressional approval and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives.  Concealed from both countries, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for our use, and why conservation initiatives have more influence over our governments than us.

Sec. Zinke supports these LCCs.  The LCCs were originally created under Secretarial Order (SO) 3289 by Sec. Salazar, then advanced by Sec. Jewell with SO 3330.  In 2017, President Trump directed the DOI to revoke  “agency actions” by the Obama administration.  Sec. Zinke responded with SO 3349 which did revoke SO 3330, stopping all LCC activity.  But Sec. Zinke then immediately issued SO 3362, reinstating and expanding LCC activity that he just revoked, omitting citizen involvement except to put fencing up, and allowing conservation initiatives to continue their work with our governments for large landscape conservation, including the creation of corridors.  Since that time the conservation initiatives have upped their game, becoming more aggressive with attempts for land use restrictions, hiring more staff to target areas in both countries, expanding their media assault in Canada, and even advertising Idaho Fish & Game jobs.  Sec. Zinke even wants to plant his staff into our states with his reorganization to further the conservation agenda.

Basically, GNLCC believes land is “fragmented” by development, impeding the movement of wildlife.  Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are “isolated” from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into conservation so that there is a “link” between the protected areas for “connectivity“.  Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse.  As an example, the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Idaho Fish & Game, Idaho Transportation Department, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Nature Conservancy participated together in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012.  As a GNLCC partner, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) also works to identify linkage zones.  Here is a short video explaining connectivity.

To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and putting land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat.  If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for wildlife movement protection, or what they call a migratory corridor.  With that protection comes restricted or banned use, with justification for restrictive land use policies nearby, including how a private property owner can use their land.  According to Y2Y, “Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands.”  Once a corridor is designated the next objective by GNLCC partners is extending the corridor to adjacent land, including private property, or procuring a conservation easement, expanding their restrictive land use policies.  Anything goes for linkage.

The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others from both countries, all work towards achieving GNLCC goals.  In this document you will see GNLCC objectives for both countries including obtaining land for protective status, interfering with local land use policies, and restricting energy development.  The Government of Alberta – Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC which extends from Montana into western Alberta and British Columbia.  Targeted areas for connectivity are also mapped out.

Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS).  Canadian and U.S. government employees sit on the CMP leadership team and the GNLCC funds them.  The CMP has a “Transboundary Conservation Initiative” that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans.

Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need.  The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners.

As a partner to the UN participant, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the USFWS, Canadian government, Y2Y, Harvey Locke, and Gary Tabor bring IUCN objectives and ideology back to our countries, one of which is addressing “threats’ to wildlife, habitats, wetlands, etc., while advocating for special land protections for different categories and connectivity.

On September 2-3, 2015 the GNLCC held a meeting on their connectivity initiative laying out the larger picture for restricted use and banned access as seen in the box below.

The Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC) will be used as a transboundary link connecting wildlife between British Columbia and Idaho.  Here are all GNLCC focal areas.

Both Canadians and Americans need to be aware of this GNLCC agenda, coming straight out of the UN, that includes unauthorized partnerships between our governments and conservation initiatives.  We have lost all representation by our elected officials, including Sec. Zinke.  Our governments are partnering with groups that have specific UN goals to take our land from us, restrict or ban the use of our land, and eventually dictate how we will be allowed to use our land.  It is time all of this is exposed for both Canadians and Americans and action taken to confront and stop it.

 

 

 

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

2 Comments on It’s Time To Revisit The GNLCC for both Canada and the USA

  1. “The LCCs were originally created under Secretarial Order (SO) 3289 by Sec. Salazar, then advanced by Sec. Jewell with SO 3330.”

    Here in the USA the ONLY people who are SERVING WITHIN the positions that were DELEGATED the authority to create LEGISLATION is those who serve directly within the House of Representatives and the Senate (Except for Treaties, that takes the US President “…, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”

    That delegated authority cannot be given, traded, sold, assigned to, etc anyone or any other position. Sec. Salazar, Sec. Jewell and Sec. Zinke do NOT have the authority to speak for the American people or our nation in this matter UNLESS that legislation was created by those who actually serve within the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nor can he/they legally or Lawfully appropriate funds for this purpose.

    The multiple crimes committed by these people, their subordinates who “just followed orders” and “just do/did their jobs” while being REQUIRED to stop the actions of their superiors by the Oath they took to “Support and Defend the US Constitution” above and before anything including the orders of superiors and the duties of the position they occupy – another safeguard that the framers inserted into the US Constitution, the Oath requirement. What crimes? Multiple felonies, multiple cases of Perjury, *Terrorism, **Treason in some/many instances, etc.

    What this means is that nothing that any person who serves within the general (federal) government does is LAWFUL and binding on the American people or the USA UNLESS it is found in writing within the US Constitution. That does not mean that domestic enemies and traitors who serve(d) within our governments did not unLawfully create legislation that is unLawfully enforced, they did, it is, and the PEOPLE and this NATION are paying for allowing this to go on. (Capital “L” means Legislation that is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution as is done within the document itself)

    So what things have been done that are NOT Lawful and binding on the American people and their nation? Foreign aid (Misappropriation of Funds”), foreign military aid (Misappropriation of Funds”), Federal Reserve is forbidden, TSA, NSA, CIA and other “intelligence” agencies, BLM land that the general government claims to “own” that is also not consistent with the US Constitution’s requirements for the feds to own land, any Treaty that does not conform to the conditions outlined within the US Constitution, any type of gun regulation as that was never delegated to either the state or general (federal) government, public schools, wars that are NOT Congressionally declared or actually to defend the USA, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc, etc…

    So many things.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Section 802 (Title 18): “Domestic Terrorism” is defined as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.

    **Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

    Three elements are necessary for an offense to constitute treason:
    – an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
    intent to go against the legal order, and then
    – action to violate that obligation.

    Treason (Section 2385) and Misprision of Treason’ (Section 2382)
    Color of Law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but ALSO ACTS DONE BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THAT OFFICIAL’S LAWFUL AUTHORITY, IF THE ACTS ARE DONE WHILE THE OFFICIAL IS PURPORTING TO OR PRETENDING TO ACT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS/HER OFFICIAL DUTIES.

    652. Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy: Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

    An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).

    Sedition, legally defined: as ”the criminal act of revolting against an established authority, usually in the form of treason or defamation of a government.”

    Sedition not only covers a person’s actions but also any words or writings in print that may incite, encourage or promote the overthrowing of a government; it’s seditious libel. (Not sure that applies in this case but believes that it does because it works to undermine and destroy our legitimate government from within.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*