A Country Girl’s Musin’
by Judy Keeler
Judy Keeler exposes the Wildlands Project for scandal that it is.
[Source]
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 1)
Anticipating an unusually festive 4th of July, my family and I decided to make the annual trek across, or rather around, the Peloncillo Mountains in Southwest New Mexico to our favorite independence celebration in Rodeo, New Mexico.
Rodeo was established in 1902 when the EP&SW railroad extended its line from Douglas, Arizona to Antelope Pass in the Peloncillo Mountains. Its location soon became an important shipping point for livestock, as indicated by the Spanish translation of its name, which means "roundup". Located on US 80 about 33 miles south of I-10, just east of the beautiful
Chiricahua Mountains and Portal, Arizona, a post office was established in 1903.
Like many rural communities today, Rodeo consists of a cluster of homes in the town site with a store, several art galleries, a real estate office, garages, post office and local pub. Dotting the surrounding landscape are several subdivisions, ranches and farms.
A typical rural community, Rodeo embraces its visitors with both, respect and suspicion. Having grown up in a small town, I understand their culture and concerns.
It was a surprise, therefore, when I viewed some participants carrying a Sky Island banner in Rodeo’s Fourth of July parade. Other Sky Islanders carried signs depicting the Sierra Madres, Peloncillos, Chiricahua and Rocky Mountain ranges. Still others marched under a replication of the mountain chains that was reminiscent of the paper dragons seen in Mardi Gras parades. A few others marched in the black attire usually associated with Earth Firsters.
As I watched the Sky Island participants, I wondered how many of the marchers, much less the local residents, were familiar with the Sky Island concept, who birthed the movement and its agenda.
I have not always been a private property activist. In fact it was not out of choice, but of necessity, I started my trek. It began when The Nature Conservancy bought the Gray Ranch.
My first face to face encounter with TNC activities occurred when they arranged for about 100 federal, state and non government employees from around the U.S. to visit the Bootheel of New Mexico for an on-the-ground workshop. Their intent was to field test, by inventorying our area, color coded satellite maps. They believed in this way they could verify the actual vegetation type found on a particular site by associating it with a particular color on the map.
The only problem, they forgot to contact the adjoining landowners and inform them their forces would be accessing their properties.
Our personal encounter began when we saw vehicle tracks traveling around a locked gate on our private property. Not knowing what we would find, we followed the tracks to their destination. There we came across a BLM pickup with magnetic Nature Conservancy stickers covering the BLM name and logo. Additionally, two BLM employees were enjoying their lunch in a shaded area of our ranch.
Obviously startled by our approach, my husband lost no time informing them they were enjoying their lunch on private property. If their intent was to access the BLM lands, he continued, they would need a horse because the existing roads were not passable in a vehicle. The employees explained their instructions were to do an on the ground inventory of the vegetation and wildlife found in our area, and referred us to their leader at the Howe Camp on the Gray Ranch.
During the course of the conversation, they reluctantly showed us an inventory sheet they were filling out for The Nature Conservancy. The sheet listed a number of plants and wildlife they were to check if observed.
What did it all mean? Unfamiliar with TNC, we had no hint what was transpiring in our area.
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 2)
The Sky Island Alliance (Part 1)
I became acquainted with the Sky Islands Alliance about six years ago. A newspaper editor gave me a copy of the organization’s brochure. Having been faxed several times, it was a bad copy. The best I could discern, the group was in favor of protecting biodiversity and working with the Wildlands Project. Familiar with the Wildlands Project, I wondered what connectivity lay between the two organizations.
Not until an article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, June 15, 1997, by Mike Taugher, did I realize the full extent of their collaboration. Entitled “Trying to Preserve Wild Land”, the article contended conservation biologists agreed steps should be taken to preserve biodiversity in our state. It also claimed, “islands of national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas” had to be expanded for the sake of numerous plants and animals.
Also, according to the article, conservationists and biologists were all working together to design “vast nature reserves”. The Wildlands Project being the most ambitious, “if not (most) radical”, of the groups involved in the effort.
One of the Wildlands Projects’ and Sky Island’s first proposals was to be in “southwestern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and northern Mexico”. It would be called the “Greater Gila Sky Island reserve” and “encompass 40,000 acres”. Within that acreage would be wilderness core areas, corridors connecting the core areas, with buffer zones surrounding, both, the core and corridor areas.
The core areas would be “designed to protect ‘umbrella species’ such as, bears, wolves, bison and jaguars”. In an attempt to lessen any alarm over their proposal, the group claimed land-use restrictions would not be as restrictive in the buffer zones as the core areas.
The two leaders of the agenda were Dave Foreman and Jack Humphrey. Foreman, according to the article, was an Albuquerque resident who "co-founded the radical environmental group Earth First!", during the ‘70s. He had, however, disassociated himself from the group when ‘they turned into a bunch of left-wing, counter-culture radicals’. Jack Humphrey was program director for the Sky Island Alliance.
The article stated that "during the ‘60s and ‘70’s wilderness advocates concentrated their efforts on the high mountain areas found in forest reserves. These areas were typically pretty, and attractive to users of the outdoors". As a result, “wilderness areas were designated in scenic, high-altitude areas that were beautiful but not necessarily rich in trees, minerals or grazing land”.
Over the years these same wilderness advocates shifted their “emphasis on wilderness as a place for scenery and recreation to wilderness as a place for preservation of plants and animals”.
By 1997, Foreman was heading up the Wildlands Project. It’s intent, to “remap (large) chunks of North American from a conservation biologist’s point of view”. Although it had a budget of $500,000, it came “mostly from grants and some individual donations”. The organization was, at the time, and remains today, based in Tucson, Arizona.
Jack Humphrey had affiliated with the Wildlands Project so his organization, the Sky Island Alliance, “could design the biological reserves”. Humphreys considered it “one of the most ambitious agendas the conservation movement had ever undertaken”.
Although the duo conceded conservation biology's claim that “umbrella species would cause other species to be protected”, and “flourish”, the theory “was largely untested”. They indicated, however, the groups involved in this project had all the time in the world to test their theory. “If it takes 200 years, it takes 200 years. This land isn’t going anywhere”, the article quoted Humphrey.
Once the maps were completed, the intent was to start “purchasing land, using conservation easements on private land, lobbying agencies in an effort to influence the planning process for public lands, and using congressional action to advance their agenda”.
Foreman felt, in some cases, it would take “just a tweaking of a management plan” to accomplish their purposes.
As proof the Wildlands Project was a serious effort, they gave Florida as an example of how “half of the state’s land could be used to protect wildlife”. They also claimed they had an advantage in western states that didn’t exist in Florida, “there’s a lot more public land out here”, they gleefully conjectured.
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 3)
The Sky Island Alliance (Part 2)
At first glance the Sky Island Alliance’s most recent brochure is a colorful portrayal of images. A beautiful Mexican Parrot fills the front page. Picturesque Chihuahuan Desert landscapes leap from the inner pages. A portrait of the allusive jaguar dominates its own corner.
Although the Alliance now claims to have originated in 1992, in response to the Forest Service’s development oriented recreational plan, their initial press coverage stated they were established to “design biological reserves”.
Claiming to be a grassroots coalition in favor of restoring native biological diversity, and a publicly supported non-profit, 501(c) 3, organization, the Alliance’s tax return for the year 2000, shows the organization received the majority of its funding from a handful of contributors. Contributions for the year totaled $108,901. However, $105,000 came from five donors. Only a small amount of income came from their “grassroots” supporters.
For the year 1999, their 990 tax return reveals the organization grew exponentially from 1995 to 2000. Receiving contributions of only $3,100 in 1995, their largest leaps in income occurred between 1996 and 1998 when they grew from $25,371, to $60,686, to $103,853.
Today, the original “Greater Gila Sky Island Reserve” has also grown by leaps and bounds, from a 40,000 square mile plan to one of 70,000 square miles. The name has also been changed. It is now called the “Sky Islands Wildlands Network (SWIN)”.
Based on a concept called “rewilding”, the Alliance now hopes “to stabilize prey and smaller predator populations” by “restoring large carnivores”. Working with “its partners the Wildlands Project and Naturalia, of Mexico”, the organization claims to have spent 7 years writing a 220 page Sky Island Wildlands Network Conservation Plan to achieve its goals.
According to the Plan, the greatest threats to the “sky island” area are subdivisions, poor livestock grazing practices, fire suppression and recreation and resource based management by the federal agencies.
Just as the Wildlands Project calls for core areas, corridors and buffer zones to protect biodiversity, the Alliance calls for core areas to be designated for “wilderness, roadless areas, and national parks” where “extractive uses would be prohibited”.
Based on rewilding, the “linkage”, or corridor, areas would allow the “genetic exchange” necessary for wide-ranging “focal species such as Mexican wolves, jaguars, mountain lions, black bears, elk, and northern goshawks”.
Their claim that the 70,000 acre area is “globally important” because it is “rich in diverse species and habitats”, is supported solely on Aldo Leopold’s conviction that “this area is the last of North America’s strongholds for magnificent predators”.
Both the Wildlands Project and Sky Island Alliance participate in inventorying Forest and BLM lands for “roadless” areas. Making these events overnight camping trips, filled with fun and adventure, their trips have drawn avid followers. During the summer of 2000, several representatives from cooperating groups took part in “inventorying” the Coronado Forest in southern Hidalgo County.
Surveying for roadless areas has created one of those “strange bed fellow” relationships between environmental groups and ranchers. Ranchers, desiring to protect their private property and inholdings on federal lands, i.e. windmills, water storage tanks, etc., from trespass and criminal damage, have unwittingly allowed the Alliance to recommend closing certain roads.
Once recommendations are made to, and approved by, the federal agencies they become binding on all parties. Roads are obliterated from maps, and blocked by boulders on the ground. This serves to increase the amount of acreage in “roadless areas” and causes it to be reclassified by the agencies. It also provides a stronger case for environmental groups that lobby Congress to convert wilderness study areas into wilderness, and to enlarge existing wilderness areas.
October 19th the Sky Island Alliance, Wildlands Project, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Wilderness Society and Arizona Wilderness Coalition will host a “Sky Island 2002: Restoring Connections” workshop in Tucson, Arizona. Proclaiming the event will showcase “the network of people and organizations working to preserve the biological diversity of the unique Sky Islands borderland ecoregion” attendees will have an opportunity to hear “from Sky Islands Wildlands Network member groups, private citizens, scientists, government agencies, and other land protection organizations about the latest efforts to restore and connect wildlands”.
<http://www.wild-earth.org/inside_wp/index_upcoming.html>
Keynote speaker will be Dave Foreman. Other presenters, besides the hosts, include: the Arizona State Museum; U.S. Forest Service; Malpai Borderlands Group; Nature Conservancy; National Park Service; Sonoran Institute; Gray Ranch; World Wildlife Fund; Center for Biological Diversity; Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory; Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection; Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Protection Plan; University of Arizona; Defenders of Wildlife; Arizona Open Land Trust; National Resource Conservation Service; a conservation biologist, a jaguar researcher, and a Coronado Forest rancher.
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 4)
The Wildlands Project’s Mission
The Wildlands Project becomes a little confusing until one realizes there is an organization called the Wildlands Project, with headquarters in Tucson, Arizona, and an actual document, also referred to as the Wildlands Project.
Just as the Sky Island Alliance has a 220 page plan for a 70,000 square mile preserve in New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico, so the Wildlands Project has an 87 page Master Plan. This Plan, however, is not limited to a specific geographic area, only to ones’ imagination.
A copy of the Wildlands Project's Plan lay on my desk for over a year before I finally read it. Published in a special issue of “Wild Earth”, a quarterly publication of the Cenozoic Society - 1992, 75,000 copies were distributed to activists, the majority mailed to federal and state agencies with oversight responsibilities for wildlife and land-use planning.
The subtitle for the Plan is appropriately entitled, “Plotting a North American Wilderness Recovery Strategy”. After reading the Plan, I concluded it was such a far-fetched concept that no on could take it seriously. Unfortunately, over the years, I’ve been proven wrong, as more and more federal and state agencies appear to be adopting the conservation principles presented in the Plan.
The actual Master Plan is divided into 18 chapters, including, the Project’s Mission Statement, prepared by Dave Foreman, David Johns, Michael Soule, Reed Noss and John Davis. I quote, “[t]he mission of The Wildlands Project is to help protect and restore the ecological richness and native biodiversity of North America through the establishment of a connected system of reserves.” The mission continues, “[t]he land has given much to us; now it is time to give something back – to begin to allow nature to come out of hiding and to restore the links that will sustain both wilderness and the spirit of future human generations.”
“The idea is simple. To stem the disappearance of wildlife and wilderness we must allow the recovery of whole ecosystems and landscapes in every region of North America. Allowing these systems to recover requires a long-term master plan.”
Their vision is also simple, it involves “living for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska” and Gray Wolves “are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland”. Vast areas must be set aside so wildlife and plants can “once again thrive and support pre-Columbian species”.
Based on the conviction that wildlife and plant species are in extreme peril, the Master Plan claims “existing Wilderness, Parks and Wildlife Refuges are not adequately protecting life in North America.” True to Chicken Little, the sky is falling: “Large predators are imperiled in much of their habitat; songbirds, waterfowl and shorebirds are reaching new lows; native forests have been extensively cleared; and tall and short grass prairies have been almost entirely destroyed or domesticated”.
In addition to visioning reserves for wildlife and plants, the Wildlands Project calls for wilderness areas to be home “for unfettered life, free from industrial human intervention”. “Vast landscapes without roads, dams, motorized vehicles, powerlines, overflights, or other artifacts of civilization”, must be designed to save biodiversity.
Michael Soule, conservation biologist, speaks in the Chapter entitled, “A Vision For The Meantime”. Soule, according to his biography, was the founder and first president of the Society for Conservation Biology, is chair of Environmental Studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and has acted as a consultant on matters related to biological diversity for many agencies and organizations.
In this chapter, Soule advises Wildlands Project supporters to take their time implementing the Plan. Why adopt a politics of patience? “The answer is fear, fear on the part of those folks who believe they will lose their jobs as loggers or miners, have to abandon their way of life as ranchers, professional guides or commercial fishermen, and be forced to move from the region where their families have been living for generations.”
Soule believes the conservationists’ task is to “remove the fear from people who see themselves threatened by attacks on their occupations, their livelihoods, their world view, and their property”.
John Davis, editor of the “Wild Earth” newsletter, in his chapter, “WE Role in the Wildlands: The Role of Wild Earth in the Wildlands Project”, expresses his calling more candidly. Davis claims the “Wild Earth” is an independent publication serving biocentric wildland groups, including The Wildlands Project and the groups involved in the Project.” Via the “Wild Earth”, Davis intends to publish articles “on successful wilderness protection strategies, natural history essays, conservation biology teachings, musings on deep ecology, ideas for reversing the human population explosion, and warnings and threats to wild areas”.
Exposing his disdain for humanity, Davis writes, “’Wild Earth’ exists in part to remind conservationists that in the long run all lands and waters should be left to the whims of Nature, not to the selfish desires of one species which chose for itself the misnomer ‘Homo sapiens’, humanizing of landscapes must stop now and be reversed.”
Summarizing his thoughts on the Plan, Davis concludes, “[d]oes all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly.”
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 5)
The Wildlands Project – Conservation Biology
<http://stage.conbio.net/ConBio/Who_We_Are_EN.asp?SnID=811666082>
The Wildlands Project’s Master Plan consists of an 87 page document, originally published in the “Wild Earth” - 1992. Within these pages are found the essential elements with which to build a “biological preserve”. The chapter discussing this reserve design is entitled “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy”, by Reed F. Noss.
Dave Foreman, Howie Wolke, and Bart Koehler actually laid the foundation for this concept in the early 1980’s. Published in the June 1983 issue of Earth First!, and again in Foreman’s 1991 book, “Confessions of an Eco-Warrior”, the concept continues to be honed over time.
Normal scientific findings usually begin with a theory, or hypothesis. The scientist’s job is to prove the hypothesis using acceptable standards to reach an unbiased conclusion. These standards include gathering facts, analyzing data, comparing information with a control group, testing the hypothesis, then reaching a conclusion.
On the other hand, conservation biology does not operate using standard scientific guidelines. In the author’s own words, the Plan is “largely untested”, a theory yet proven.
It has, however, been embraced by both academia and the media from Seattle, Washington and Stanford, California to Orona, Maine and Orlando, Florida. Incorporated in 1986, the Society of Conservation Biology claims membership of 10,000 people and institutions.
Reed Noss openly acknowledges that “the ideas and words presented”, in the Wildlands Project’s Master Plan, “are part of a continually evolving text. According to Noss’ biography, he is a consultant in ecology and conservation biology, half time research scientist at the University of Idaho’s College of Forestry, and a research associate at Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology. He holds a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from the University of Florida. His most recent stint has been to serve as a paid consultant to the Department of Interior, hired during Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt’s term.
It is interesting to note here, the Bureau of Land Management’s Rangeland Reform ’94, birthed through a great deal of controversy during Secretary Babbitt’s administration, adopts, almost word for word, Noss’ recommendations for maintaining biological diversity. As expressed in the Master Plan, in order to maintain biological diversity one must maintain ecological and evolutionary processes such as; “disturbance regime, hydrological process, nutrient cycle and biotic interaction”.
Conservation biologists also believe large carnivores and ungulates require large expanses of land in order to breed and expand. For a minimum viable population of 1000 [large predators], an area of 242 million acres would be required for grizzly bears, 200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves.
The reserve design would consist of core reserves, connecting corridors, and two buffer zones. Core reserves would be managed as roadless areas, within which all roads would be closed, “free from industrial use”. The “inner buffer zone would be strictly protected”, while the “outer zones would allow a wider range of compatible human uses”.
Outside the outer buffer area would be an area Noss refers to as the “matrix”. Initially this matrix would consist of the land surrounding the reserve. However, according to Noss, the matrix would exist only “in the first stages of a wilderness recovery project”. Eventually, the wilderness network would be expanded to “dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands”.
As noted in an issue of “Science” – June 25, 1993 - the long-term goal of the Wildlands Project "is nothing less than a transformation of America from a place where 4.7 percent of the land is wilderness to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded” by wilderness.
Noss suggests in the Master Plan that “at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridors zones within the next few decades”. That is assuming, of course, that “most of the other 50% is managed intelligently as buffer zone”.
Although this appears to be a very ambitious plan, it does not go far enough for a few Wildland proponents. Some have called for as much as 89% of our nation’s land mass to be set aside in these reserves – set apart from human activities.
For supporters and affiliates of the Wildlands Project, Noss also discusses how to select a reserve site and draw boundaries; how large a core reserve should be; how a core reserve should be managed; the primary functions of a “multiple-use zone”; the primary functions of corridors; and design and management criteria.
Under “restorative management” techniques, he suggests; replanting with native species; thinning of fire-suppressed stands of forest types; reintroduction of fire; road closures; control or (where possible) elimination of exotic species (including livestock); and reintroduction of large carnivores.
The Wildlands Projects’ Master Plan also calls for reserves to be managed by nongovernmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy. Dave Foreman even suggests “Nature Conservancy staff should be plugged in so that gaps in reserve networks can become priorities for acquisition”.
Noss continues, “[s]ympathetic agency personnel should be recruited” to bring together “professional ecologists and other scientists who understand the local ecosystem and wildlife as well as the principles of conservation biology”, and “grass-roots conservation activists who understand the mechanics of public land management” to help design the preserves.
A few years ago, I heard the president of a local ranching organization state that “conservation biology was the only pure science”. He contended the science used by land grant universities to improve rangeland, “had been compromised because it was funded by the ranching community”.
I felt the rancher was very naïve to believe organizations like The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society and Sierra Club are truly altruistic, unbiased and their science uncompromised.
I’m not alone in questioning conservation biology’s unbiased science. Biologists around the continent question whether there is really any science to support the Wildlands Project.
Richard Hobbs, author of “The Role of Corridors in Conservation: Solution or Bandwagon?” strongly implies the theory that ‘natural corridors’ enhances the free movement of species between reserves is on shaky ground. This concept, “along with other principles of reserve design, have been quoted in policy documents and textbooks, despite being supported by few empirical data at the time, and being subject to considerable debate since.”
Other scientists have been even more challenging, preferring to call it pseudo-science.
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 6)
The Wildlands Project – Dave Foreman
The most charismatic, yet the most controversial, player in the Wildlands Project is no doubt Dave Foreman. Known for his wolf howls that tend to drive his audience into a frenzy of responding howls, he has the innate ability to draw his followers into the melodrama. Likely perfected during his days as the “unspoken” leader of Earth First!, his howls have become a part of his persona.
Much in demand as a speaker, he has entertained crowds from California to Colorado to Maryland. Along the way he has authored several books, including “Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching”. In this book Foreman details how his followers can “monkeywrench”, or sabotage, dams, power plants, industrial equipment, windmills, and water storage tanks, as well as other artifacts of civilization. Publicized as a great “how-to book on destroying everything”, the book is designed to equip eco-saboteurs with the knowledge necessary to make much needed “social changes”.
Foreman also authored, “Confessions of an Eco Warrior”, “The Big Outside”, in collaboration with Howie Wolke, and his most recent book, “Lobo Outback Funeral Home”.
Not many agree which came first Earth First!, or “The Monkey Wrench Gang” written by Edward Abbey, but everyone agrees they both embrace the concepts endorsed by Foreman in his book “Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching”, in which he lays out the plans for the Wildlands Project.
During the early ‘70s Foreman worked for the Wilderness Society as their Southwest Regional Representative in New Mexico. From there he moved up to become Director of Wilderness Affairs in Washington, D.C. According to an individual who had worked closely with him during his New Mexico days, it was during his trek to lobby at the national capitol that Foreman became disillusioned with the “system”.
Returning to Arizona and New Mexico, Foreman was a changed man. No longer satisfied to count species along the Gila River, apparently he decided more radical measures had to be taken to ensure wilderness became the focus of public and congressional activities.
It was also during this time he founded Earth First! With this group he found a voice to vent his frustration with the system. Whether it was at clandestine meetings, or as editor of the “Earth First! Journal”, Foreman also found a following for his radical views of mankind and the perceived destruction humanity brings upon the Earth.
After being arrested on charges of plotting to sabotage several nuclear facilities by downing power lines serving the plants, Foreman spun away from Earth First! in the late ‘80’s to become co-founder, and chairman of the Wildlands Project by 1991. Less controversial than Earth First! this organization provided the vehicle he needed to gain mainstream support for enlarging wilderness areas. It also provided a more open public platform than the Earth Firster’s clandestine forest rendezvouses. In addition, it gave Foreman a podium, via academia, by which to propel the Wildlands Project’s Master Plan into the arena of public opinion.
Often compared to a zealous “hellfire and brimstone” preacher, Foreman is most known for his claims that humanity is a scourge on the planet. Based upon Paul Ehrlich’s past prediction that the earth would no longer be able to sustain its population by 1990, and refueled with current predictions by the World Wildlife Fund that the human race will plunder “the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life” by 2050, Foreman has this to say: "Right now, we are in the middle of the sixth great extinction episode in earth's history, and we can't blame this one on an asteroid."
In order to save the world, all human impacts on the planet must be eliminated or at the very least, severely prohibited. Population must be reduced, immigration into the U.S., severely restricted. It was the Sierra Club’s refusal to adopt Foreman’s policy on immigration that caused him to leave as a board of director for the organization in 1997.
By 1999, firmly seated as the guru of wilderness, Foreman joined with others to establish the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. Joining Foreman were: Todd Schulke, founder and staff member of Southwest Center for Biological Diversity; Dave Parson, wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and program leader for the reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the Southwest; Jim Baca, former mayor of Albuquerque and past national director of the Bureau of Land Management; C. Wesley Leonard, director of the Energy Center at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and chairman of the Management Committee of the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy - UTEP; and Jim Scarantino, Albuquerque attorney, chairman of the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, and NM REP Foundation (Republicans for Environmental Protection).
Just as Charles Manson’s followers believed he held mystical power, as discussed in Vincent Bugliosi’s book, “Helter Skelter”, so the followers of Dave Foreman believe he receives his revelations from a higher power. According to one account, Foreman, caught up in the revelry of the moment and filled to overflowing with tequila, threw an empty bottle in the air during a rendezvous with other wilderness proponents in the Chisos Mountains of the Big Bend National Park in 1984. To everyone’s amazement, as a dozen eyes watched the bottle spin into the heavenlies, it mysteriously disappeared. No one heard the bottle falling back to earth, or shattering into a thousand pieces.
Foreman still mesmerizes his followers today with his charisma, charm, and dogma. Not much has changed over the years, but his constituency is growing within the arenas of academia, congress, and federal and state agencies.
Much could be written about Dave Foreman, more than this newspaper can hold. For those with inquiring minds, I’ve included some related articles that are a must read for those who want to know more about the Wildlands Project and its many faceted leader.
Articles Related to Part 6
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 7)
The Wildlands Project – The Nature Conservancy
This week I intended to discuss The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the 10 largest nonprofit in our nation. However, in order to understand how some of the players interact within the environmental movement, I’d like to point out some opinions I’ve developed during years of research.
According to my observations, a line has been drawn in the sand. On one side of the line stand those who believe in people and the good in humanity. These individuals tend to believe in their fellow man and enjoy helping their neighbors.
On the other side are those who believe humanity is a curse on the earth. These individuals tend to suppress and inhibit other human beings and any human activities they consider detrimental.
Here are some values they perpetuate:
* Environmentalism pits man against nature, i.e., man is killing all wildlife; hacking up their habitats and destroying the species’ ability to survive. Mankind is the villain. His activities are fouling the land, water and air.
* Humans are on a level with all other species. Animals and plants deserve the same rights as mankind. Although they concede mankind may have the ability to choose right from wrong, it is assumed they always choose wrongly. Humanity is inherently bad. Nature is good.
* Everything is a crisis. Extinction of species will occur tomorrow, or at the least, in the very near future. Although their belief system is based on evolution, this same evolutionary process can not be allowed to continue. They must “save” the Earth!
* They are very elitist. The organizations, and individuals heading them, believe they’re the only ones who know what is good for the planet, including its, animals, land, water and air. It is their job to “educate” others because they possess superior knowledge. Mankind must stop all activities they perceive to be destructive.
* They are extremists. The word compromise does not exist in their vocabulary. Whether it is the size of trees that can be logged, developing oil and gas, or the right of individuals to manage their own property, they will not compromise unless it’s one of their own doing the cutting, drilling or subdividing.
* Most of the organizations involved in this agenda, and the Wildlands Project specifically, are interconnected, either through their agenda of “saving” species, open space and wilderness, or through their funding sources – usually money granted by large foundations.
Those who scorn humanity have found some very useful tools to control and ultimately eliminate those who do not agree with them. Once they have created a perceived crisis in an area, they use the laws they have helped generate to force compliance.
One of their favorite and most effective tools is the Endangered Species. However, they’ve been known to use the Clean Air and Water Acts to suit their purposes as well.
What began in the 1960’s as a social agenda to clean up industrial pollution and save species in peril has today become a nightmare. The environmental movement had, at one time, a legitimate reason to exist. Several industrial corporations were polluting our lands, air and waters. Some species were actually declining to the point of extinction. But through the years, as these conflicts were resolved, the environmental community changed its focus from industrial pollution to any activity they considered a pollutant, i.e. harvesting timber, mining minerals, irrigating desert lands, grazing rangelands and some forms of recreation.
With time they were also able to change the public’s perception from cleaning up to “saving” every little bug and crawling critter. It has gone so far now that some organizations are even trying to save lichen (algae). Are these organizations becoming even more extreme in their causes, and why?
David Brower, Sierra Club’s first executive director, and supporter of the Wildlands Project, explained how environmental organizations have built their system to make their agenda appear main stream in E magazine: “The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. Then I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still looking for a group to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”
This statement was made in 1990. Today, we have the Wildlands Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Forest Guardians, Range Net, and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF!) among approximately 1400 other “environmental” organizations that are massaging the public into believing their claims. Some of these organizations tend to make other environmental organizations appear moderate in comparison to their extremist positions. Many are supported by large foundation and government grants.
How does TNC fit into this agenda? In my opinion, when the extremist groups attack miners, loggers, ranchers and recreationalists, TNC is then free to ride in wearing their white hats. Appearing to be the good guys, they can now save the day for everyone, and make off with the goods in the process.
More on The Nature Conservancy next week.
Articles Related to Part 7
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 8)
The Wildlands Project – The Nature Conservancy’s land acquisition program
When I began researching the environmental movement, one of the first books I read was a thick, 640 page treatise, entitled, “Trashing the Economy: How Runaway Environmentalism is Wrecking America”. Written by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, published in 1994, it is a virtual encyclopedia on the various environmental organizations operating in the U.S. * I consider it invaluable when researching how, why and who is involved in “rewilding” America.
Incorporated in 1951, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), began small. Funded by its members, consisting mainly of botanists and zoologists, TNC used their donations to purchase small tracts of land for preservation and collecting scientific specimens. From its inception in 1951 until the 1970’s TNC was “as American as motherhood and apple pie”.
As with all small, well-intentioned beginnings, the group began to expand its horizons when Patrick Noonan began serving as director of operations in 1970. During this time, TNC used a foundational grant to buy up three barrier islands off the Virginia coast.
Soon Noonan began a secretive, “whirlwind acquisition” campaign to buy up the remaining islands "with the intent to develop them into upscale vacation homes". Using a “bogus front group”, TNC managed to purchase 14 of the 18 barrier islands. “With its purchase TNC destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of economic growth and thousands of jobs – not just with those three but with what followed.”
The land acquisition campaign cost TNC dissention among its ranks and several of its long-standing members. Under pressure Noonan resigned his position as both executive director and director of operations in 1980. Assuming “the presidency of the Conservation Fund”, he remained, however, a consultant to TNC.
Even without Noonan at the helm, the Virginia island land acquisition campaign continued into the 1980’s. TNC spent most of their capital, about 25 million dollars, acquiring 14 of the 18 barrier islands. These acquisitions “effectively stopped all economic development – except for the Conservancy’s”.
A new mission had begun, as a result, a new perception of the organization emerged. “The people of the Virginia Shore generally hated The Nature Conservancy. They felt the organization was tying up lands which could have otherwise been developed for the Shore’s economic benefit. They were also irritated by the intrusion of outsiders – ‘come-heres’ in local parlance – and the Nature Conservancy were consistently outsiders of the worst sort, arrogant, we-know-better-than-you- how-to-care-for-this-land, secretive, rich and openly hostile. The county commissioners deeply resented the tax-exempt status of TNC’s land, something the poor counties could ill afford. Everyone was annoyed when the Conservancy curbed the locals from hunting, fishing, camping, and joy riding on the islands”.
A pattern soon emerged with the acquisition of the Virginia barrier islands: “Create an exclusive private nature preserve as a magnet for profitable upscale adjacent residential and commercial development then use the profits to finance still more nature acquisition.” Learning from past experience, in the future TNC would “do it quietly.”
The new pattern would also include:
* “Striking deals” with developers whereby the builders would donated as “charitable gifts” parcels of the land in the planned development to TNC. In exchange, the builder made promises of “compatible development”. As the result of one such “exchange”, “TNC got the Fish and Wildlife Foundation to accept title to the tidal wetlands (donated by the developer) which were then turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” for a refuge. The builder was then “able to advertise the rest of the holdings as ‘being adjacent to a federal wildlife refuge’”.
* Reselling parcels of land to federal agencies. “On June 30, 1990 TNC showed it held “$53.5 million in land ‘for resale to the government.” By 1992 “TNC ledgers showed the organization had received $90,693,000 for sale of land to government agencies”.
“Patrick Noonan – hiding behind TNC’s early reputation – not only shifted the Conservancy from small-is-beautiful to huge lands deals, from local control to rule from the top, but most significantly, he also shifted the Conservancy from its original keep-it-and- mange-it policy to getting the federal government to buy TNC land and pay them a tidy profit – never asking whether public ownership of land was in the best interest of either the public or the environment. It was ecologist Garrett Hardin, recall, who said, ‘The tragedy of the commons is averted by private property’.”
“William Weeks, who came on staff in 1982, was quoted by the late columnist Warren Brookes as saying, ‘We buy these (lands) when they need to be bought, so that at some point we can become the ‘willing seller’ (to the government).” Although Weeks strongly denied he said it, the document still stands today.
Another time, it was reported Mr. Weeks announced TNC had become “an arm of the federal government”, participants in the scheme of buying up private property for resale to the federal government.
Today, the Nature Conservancy has moved beyond buying and selling land. During the tenure of John Sawhill, former TNC executive director, and under Steve McCormick’s directorship today, the organization is moving forward with a new agenda at a remarkable speed.
Next Week: The Nature Conservancy’s - Strategy for 1990’s
* All quotes from Ron Arnold’s book “Trashing the Economy”
Articles Related to Part 8
The Wildlands Project – The Nature Conservancy – Strategy for the 1990’s
My research on The Nature Conservancy (TNC) began in 1989 when TNC bought the Gray Ranch with the intent of selling it to the federal government for a wildlife refuge. At that time, Larry Woodard was the New Mexico State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He also served on the Board of Directors for the New Mexico State Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Mr. Woodward would later resign this position due to a conflict of interest, but only after a great deal of controversy had been created.
During this time a very questionable land exchange took place between TNC and the BLM in Las Cruces, New Mexico. It was also during this time the BLM contracted with TNC to do a biological inventory of the federal lands in the southern portion of New Mexico under a “challenge cost-share agreement”. Their “inventory” would serve as a basis for a new Resource Management Plan for the Mimbres Resource Area, now called the Las Cruces Resource Area. Thus began a very contentious process that had everyone frustrated and defensive by the time the plan was finalized in October of 1992.
Many of the public comments on the plan appeared to center around TNC’s bias against the multiple use of the land, with grazing and recreational uses viewed very negatively in the report. Discussion of private stewardship, also appearing in several places, was considered to negatively impact the lands.
However, TNC’s own reports would conclude that more endangered and special status species were found on private lands than on federal lands. They would also later conclude grazing could be a compatible use of the land. How and why did they change their course?
Upon closely examining TNC, I’ve concluded the organization is very astute. They tend to learn from past mistakes. They are also extremely resilient. Surrounding themselves with highly educated professions they incorporate their philosophies into their agenda, making the organization appear well-balanced and providing a great deal of flexibility.
Because TNC has tremendous financial resources, the can well afford to hire some of the outstanding biologists, conservationalists, environmental lawyers and social ecologists of our day. This gives them access to some of the newest and most current information. They also have a close working relationship with our elected officials and federal land management agencies at a national level.
So close do they work with our federal agencies that they have become synonymous with land use planning. On the cutting edge of technology and conservation biology they promote their concepts with great dexterity.
By the early 90’s TNC had a new executive director, John Sawhill, which promised an even cozier relationship with big government. Sawhill took the helm proceeded by a whole host of successes. Former Secretary of Energy under the Carter administration, Sawhill also sat on the Board of Directors for several prestigious companies, including RCA, Pacific Gas and Electric, Consolidated Edison, Philip Morris, Crane Corporation and General American Investors. He also served as trustee at Princeton University, Chairman of the Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research in Massachusetts’ Institute of Technology and the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust.
In TNC’s “Conservation Strategy for the 1990’s”, John Sawhill stated that the Conservancy was going to change the way it was doing business. They would continue their nonconfrontational approach to government, and at the same time “increase resources” devoted to promoting government actions. Additionally, it was their intent to “increase the level of government funding” for conservation, “step up activities to influence the management of public lands,” and “empower government agencies”.
Mr. Sawhill soon found himself appointed, during the Clinton Administration, to the President’s Council On Sustainable Development, as well as the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.
According to TNC’s new strategy, it was also their intent to establish more bioreserves and assemble regional and national Heritage data bases designed to strengthen the Endangered Species Act.
According to an article, published in the Albuquerque Journal, September 18th, 1995, “John Sawhill, president of The Nature Conservancy, had an idea, five years and $300 million ago, on how better to protect some of the nation’s most precious ecosystems –‘the last great places’, he called them.”
“His vision has turned to reality as the conservation group marks the success today of its most ambitious environmental rescue mission ever, the preservation of 75 unique prairies, watersheds, streams, islands and forests…”
Long before federal agencies considered managing for ecosystems, wildfires and watersheds, TNC had already established itself as the “expert” on these subjects. Today, as our nation moves toward managing our lands, both private and public, for their intrinsic value to benefit endangered species, we find ourselves being guided by the principles and standards developed by The Nature Conservancy. Their plan is being implemented at an incredible pace.
Next week: The Heritage Data Base – The Rush for Technology
Articles Related to Part 9
Part 10
The Wildlands Project
The Heritage Data Base
The Rush for Technology
During the 80’s there was a rush within the environmental movement to see which computerized database would become the model. The Nature Conservancy won with its Natural Heritage Program. The money to develop the database came from various sources, including state and federal grants, as well as, foundational and private funding.
The database listed endangered and special status species and the type of habitat where they were usually found. Once established as the best program, TNC sent a team consisting of a botanist, zoologist, ecologist and data-processing specialist into each state to record historical sightings. Using existing books, theses and museum collections, the teams meticulously recorded animal and plant sightings, some dating back to over a hundred years before. They would then examine real estate records to locate where the species had been sighted, and enter this information into the database. TNC would then prioritize land acquisitions based upon the information.
According to Ron Arnold's, “Trashing the Economy”, this database was ‘so fine-grained that in some states it records the precise location of individual eagle nests and clumps of globally endangered plants’.
Once the database was established and fine-tuned, it was transferred to the individual states, along with employees who were trained by TNC to run the program. TNC documents state: “The Conservancy hires and trains at its national office a program coordinator and other professionals who then become the staff of the program in the capital of the state or nation where the program will be housed. The Conservancy supervises the staff under contract. The goal is for this staff to transfer to government employment (or otherwise permanently establish themselves) after the initial phase, which is generally two years. This transfer ensures that expertise is not lost and is a pivotal part of the way in which the network functions.”
The information contained in the database if often used in land-use “planning and regulatory functions.” Available to state and federal land management agencies, these databases have become a source of information for determining endangered and special status species, their habitat requirements, and their distribution during the development of an Environmental Assessments (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required of the federal agencies during the NEPA process.
Also available to the environmental community this information is often used when deciding if adequate federal protection has been provided for an endangered or special species.
Married to the National Biological Survey (NBS) in the early 1990’s, during Bruce Babbitt’s term as Secretary of the Interior, the National Heritage Program has grown by leaps and bounds during the last decade. Although the NBS was never authorized by Congress, it became a cabinet bureau by 1994.
Witnesses, testifying on behalf of establishing the NBS, included John Sawhill from TNC and Mark Shaffer of the Wilderness Society. During the process witnesses were asked to report back to Congress on how the NBS and Natural Heritage Network Program could mesh together. The House passed an Interior appropriations bill in July of 1993 that included 30 million dollars worth of “new” money for the NBS.
Although initially touted by Secretary Babbitt as a system that would provide more and better data, and an “understanding of a properly functioning ecosystem” that would enable federal “land managers to recognize ecosystems in trouble before the eleventh- hour crisis”, the NBS has done little to halt the lawsuits and “ecological train wrecks” this information was supposed to prevent.
Also growing exponentially has been the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) surveys for endangered and special status species. TNC, using the 5 S’s of conservation, has become the lead in contributing information to the Heritage data base program and determining threats to the various species. Their five S’s include: Systems, Stresses, Sources, Strategies and Success Measures.
“Systems - GIS allows planning teams to view the locations of conservation targets occurring at a site, as well as features representing the natural process that maintain them (i.e. hydrology, geology, topography, vegetation, microclimates, etc.Stresses – Using GIS stresses can be analyzed to the extent of habitat destruction, degradation, or impairment afflicting the systems at a site, including fragmentation, pollution, hydrologic alteration, and invasive species. Most importantly, however, the viability of each occurrence can be determined with GIS by measuring the site according to its size, condition and landscape.
Sources – GIS also helps the planning team to pinpoint the agents generating the stresses, such as incompatible land and water use. Historic and current land use, mining, timber harvesting, roads, and pollution sources can be mapped, as well as the ownership, zoning and administrative boundaries that affect the location of the stressors. Stresses, sources, and systems can be linked based on their relationships and proximity and flow direction.
Strategies – Once the systems, stresses, and sources operating at a site are mapped, GIS becomes the primary tool to map out conservation activities that will be implemented to abate stresses and to maintain, enhance, or restore the systems. The site is zoned to delineate specific areas to receive various types of protection and management, regulatory controls, or compatible economic development. Estimates of the costs and benefits of these activities can be made based on a real measurement and predictive model.
Success Measures – Conservation actions are expensive and are often planned and implemented in a context of change and uncertainty. Thus, it is important to periodically measure our progress in maintaining and improving biodiversity health and abating threats at a site. Based on this information, the staff can modify conservation strategies to achieve greater success. GIS is used to measure and compare indicators of biodiversity health and threat abatement, such as vegetation change, pollution, and land protection.”
Using the 5 S’s, The Nature Conservancy established a plan to manage much of the United States through designated Bioregions as presented on their website: <http://gis.tnc.org/gisattnc.php>
The Forest Service has been using the GIS mapping to determine the condition of allotments in the Coronado National Forest for several years.
The accuracy of interpreting GIS mapping information is not always perfect. I had the opportunity to go out on a "ground truthing" expedition in 1999. The allotment we were checking was on a neighboring ranch. According to the Forest Service’s findings, using GIS mapping, the allotment’s condition was 15% satisfactory, 80% unsatisfactory and had 5% unsuitable soil. However, by the time we finished the field check, we found the reverse to be true - 82% of the allotment was actually found to be in satisfactory condition, 7% unsatisfactory and 11% had unsuitable soil conditions.
The Forest Service employee shared that he was finding, in most of his ground truthing, this same trend. He assumed the color coded maps had been interpreted by the map readers incorrectly. The particular color code for grasslands did not necessarily indicate "unsatisfactory" conditions, while the trees and brushy areas, color coded green and assumed by the readers to indicate "satisfactory" condition, did not necessarily indicate “satisfactory” conditions either.
Indicating the Forest Service did not have the time or personnel to ground truth all the allotments, he believed this new interpretive mapping would be used more often to determine “suitability” of the lands.
Next Week: National Wildlife Refuges
Articles Related to Part 10
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 11)
The Wildlands Project – National Wildlife Refuges
When The Nature Conservancy (TNC) bought the Gray Ranch media coverage stated it was their intent to establish a wildlife refuge. Although TNC does not like to be reminded of this fact, the documents speak clearly.
An Associated Press article, published in the Albuquerque Journal entitled, “Nature Group to Be Middleman for Animas Refuge”, claimed “an international nature group will buy the Gray Ranch and hold it for resale to the federal government for creation of the Animas Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.”
Dated July 4, 1989, the article disclosed that New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman had already requested $9 million from the Department of Interior’s Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase. TNC was expected to purchase the ranch and “hold it for resale to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” for an estimated $18.25 million.
In another Associate Press article, entitled, “Fancy Deals Help Save Wildlife”, several similar purchases by TNC are documented. Included is the story of Shelter Island off the tip of New York’s Long Island. Owned by the Girard family, they wanted a third of the island to become a wildlife preserve. The family-owned realty company also held other properties. Although he family wanted to make a substantial gift of the land, they “also wanted to realize some cash from the holdings that included nine brownstones near Rockefeller Plaza in New York City, warehouse property in Miami, and oil and gas wells.”
“Conservancy experts worked out an elaborate deal. The family sold the realty company to the conservancy for less than the market value, reaping a charity tax deduction. The conservancy then sold off the brownstones, the gas and oil wells and the warehouses and raised the rest of the $12 million it owed the family for the realty company.”
According to the same article, Matagordo Island is another example of how TNC “worked a deal” so the U.S. Fish and Wildlife could obtain a piece of property to “enlarge the agency’s holdings in Texas”.
The Santa Cruz Islands off the coast of California, however, provided a greater challenge for TNC. Home to sheep for over 150 years, the animals would not cooperate with the Navajo sheep herders sent to round them up. Finally the sheep were fenced into a square mile area and TNC had them killed. According to the article, all but 10,000 privately held acres are now a part of the National Park Service’s Santa Cruz Island Preserve.
In an article by John Barbour, “Rescuing the Land: Environmental Groups Use The System To Help Conserve Endangered Property”, published March 18, 1990, the editor notes, “from the California deserts to the coniferous coast of Maine, from the Cascades of Washington to the Florida Everglades, the ranks of environmentalists are swelling and so are their coffers and the lands they control. No longer Don Quixotes tilting at windmills, they are now scientists, businessmen and lawyers, playing a high-stakes game.”
According to this article, up until the Gray Ranch was purchased by TNC, the organization was already taking out of production an average of “1,000 acres a day”. Today the organization averages one land purchase per day in the United States and has acquired more than 12 million acres of land that are organized into more than 1,400 preserves. A quote from Michael Dennis, general counsel for TNC, reveals that “for every scientist we have around here, we probably have an MBA, a tax lawyer and a real estate attorney.”
Barbour also states that the “environmentalists have sharpened their ‘skills’ in the private sector, recycling many of the same dollars to buy new land. They have discovered revolving funds, a war fund that doesn’t have to stay invested. They can plunk down several million dollars until, by prior arrangement, a government agency can repay them. Or they can buy a piece of property deprive it of the potential for commercial development, and resell the land for a lesser cost to what they think is an appropriate buyer.”
A high-stakes game it appears to be. According to Barbour, “TNC acted when it discovered the ranch owners wanted to sell (the Gray Ranch) and there was the threat the land might be broken up and developed.”
In reality the threat of subdivision was minuscule. The Gray Ranch happened to be just another piece of property TNC wanted to transfer to the government. Pablo Brenner (American Breco Corporation), a well-to-do industrialist from Mexico, owned the Gray Ranch prior to TNC purchasing the property in 1990.
Brenner also owned another ranch in southern Arizona, 1983-1985, called the Buenos Aires Ranch. It was sold to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1985 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. A combination of privately owned land (21,258 acres) and state trust lands (90,199 acres), the state trust lands were acquired by the federal government in a complex land exchange between the State of Arizona, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Wildlife Service.
By 1990 the area was known as the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. With the purchase of two privately owned properties from TNC, which they had purchased with the expectation of selling to the Service, the refuge grew to approximately 117,000 acres.
Having already negotiated several successful deals, TNC did not anticipate any problems establishing the Animas Wildlife Refuge. However, “politics as usual” was changing. During the Reagan administration, cabinet officials were reluctant to place more private lands into federal ownership. This forced the Conservancy to develop a new strategy. After all, TNC is a quick study and does not often repeat its failures.
A quote from Senator Bingaman in the 1990 article indicated the direction TNC would choose for the new millennium, “The Nature Conservancy, an international, private non-profit organization, is committed to helping the federal government acquire the ranch and manage the wildlife refuge.”
Wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments and other federally owned lands are the vehicles of choice for implementing the Wildlands Project. And the Nature Conservancy, along with other like-minded organizations, will be the new land managers. Given their “expertise” and “collaborative effort” it makes perfect sense.
As we have seen with the CARA bill, and other federally endorsed land acquisition schemes, expect to see more and more land to be systematically taken out of production, placed in national monuments, refuges and parks, as we continue to follow TNC’s agenda into the future. Eventually all the land will be managed for endangered species, biodiversity and “ecosystem health”. If it takes 50 to 100 years, so be it.
As Michael Dennis was eloquently quoted, “When you’re talking about an ecosystem, you could be talking about anything from 5,000 acres to 500 square miles.” A more recent observer noted than “an ecosystem can be as small as your backyard or as large as the globe”. Time is of no consequences.
Next week: The Millennium Conservancy
Articles Related to Part 11
Since my last article I’ve received many compliments, along with a few criticisms. Usually my best supporter, my Mother thought the last article was too intense, with too much information to digest. She suggested I lighten them up, just a little bit. I wrestled with her recommendations.
About the same time Kim Vicariu, Executive Director of the Wildlands Project, wrote a letter to the editor suggesting the information in my articles was not accurate. Although he stated his opinion as fact, I felt he gave very little evidence that supported his claim. How could I take his comments lightly? I wrestled some more.
People that know me well are aware I get very intense when discussing the Wildlands Project, along with the environmental groups and government agencies that are implementing the plan. However, they also know I’m not prone to lying.
My parents used to play a game with my brother and me when we were children that would have a profound influence on my ability to lie. Every time my parents suspected either of us of an "untruth", they would tell us to “look them in the eye and say cabbage, cabbage, cabbage three times without smiling”. While we tried to look at them and repeat the words they would smile and make faces at us.
When trying to “enhance” a story, I soon found I could not control my laughter, much less a smile. They always knew when we were trying to put something over on them and would admonish us not to exaggerate, or tell a lie. Even today, I find I can not tell a lie without a smile crossing my face.
I’ve often used this technique on my own children and grandchildren. It’s always been a very effective method to get at the truth!! However, I’ve also found some, who were not trained up in this way, are very effective liars.
I began my research into the Wildlands Project about 8 years ago. What I’ve uncovered is both unnerving and nothing to lie about. My intent in writing the articles was to educate others regarding an agenda I believe to be both ungodly and extremely hazardous to resource users and our society as a whole.
Too often I go wanting in the area of tact. I tend to “shoot from the hip”, while others are still trying to make small talk. Right now I’d like to go to the heart of the Wildlands Project by sharing the following article. It explains the nature of the beast better than I could ever hope to do. It certainly “cuts to the chase”. Written by an environmentalist who happened to unearth some of the same truths I’ve uncovered in my research, I think you may find the article very educational.
Don’t Trust the Trusts
Bumper stickers around Grand Staircase Escalante
warn against the Grand Canyon Trust
<http://www.rangemagazine.com/stories/winter03/dont-trust.htm>
I am an activist environmentalist and
it just about took a two-by-four to the head till I believed it.
Story by Toni Thayer.
I set out to get a little information, enough to at least disprove the bumper sticker “Don’t Trust the Trust!” Instead, I was led into a worldwide web of names—separate, entangled, and branched. I thought they were environmentalists, but they weren’t. I was finally investigating the Grand Canyon Trust’s Board of Directors.
My boyfriend, Steve Gessig, badmouthed the Trust during our first two years together, blaming them for his town’s demise. He grumbled about the enviros’ connections to the World Bank and United Nations and plans to eliminate American sovereignty.
I, however, am the avid environmental activist and refused to believe his undocumented accusations. I had firsthand experience with the Trust in Flagstaff, Ariz. For years, I worked with their staff on joint projects and committees, attended their workshops, and met in their offices. They were my friends.
Living in Escalante, Utah, Steve’s perspective was different, encircled by the United States’ largest land theft, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. The Trust spearheaded the designation in 1996 with a mission to protect and restore the Colorado Plateau canyon country. The Plateau is, basically, the Colorado River basin—beginning in northern Utah, encompassing all of southern Utah and northern Arizona, and extending into western Colorado and New Mexico. The Colorado River is the giver of life, both water and electricity, to the southwest and the downstream metropolitan regions of Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego.
The Trust made promises back then: “Other existing uses of these public lands are not affected by the proclamation [of the monument], including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and livestock grazing.”
They lied. The 1.9 million acres have been shut down with access allowed in only a few areas. New federal workers moving into town freely come and go, beyond the “restricted” signs that keep locals from their families’ traditional sites. New resource production has ceased even though the area is rich in coal, oil, gas, uranium, and timber. The world’s cleanest-burning coal is located in only two spots—the Monument and Indonesia. The Grand Staircase field is so vast it can’t be accurately valued. It has tentatively been estimated at $1.3 trillion.
The Trust doesn’t want any cattle grazing on the Plateau, an idea that’s backed by federal government intimidation and harassment of the ranchers. The ranchers are feeling the pinch of the oppression, the drought, and their rising debt. They’re selling out and ending centuries-old family cattle careers. Enviro groups are scooping up their grazing permits. Rich second homeowners and large cattle corporations are buying their lands.
A million tourists each year have replaced the resource-based economies and 5,000 cows. They fly by all of the beauty and zoom through the little towns, not spending much, mainly wanting water and sewer services. The 11,000 residents in two affected counties carry the burden of providing infrastructure and services for the increased load.
From tourist-haven Flagstaff, I know tourism does not pay livable wages and that it causes major disparity between the haves and have-nots. I couldn’t understand why the Trust wanted tourism when enviros often cited studies showing its negative impacts and lost community revenues. It didn’t make sense to take such a clean, pristine and remote area, and market it to a million tourists.
I also knew that all profits stem from resource production. It was hypocritical and outright wrong for Americans to consume most of the world’s resources and, at the same time, shut down our resource production. Then what? Go to other countries and rape and pillage their landscapes to fulfill our hungry resource needs?
Rural, southern-Utah towns are reeling from the never-ending limitations and changes put upon them by the “citified” environmental groups. They have few jobs, if any. Houses are put on the market as older generations descended from the Mormon settlers die and their offspring move to the cities for work.
In Flagstaff, no one knew much about the Trust’s board, but everyone knew that current president, Geoff Barnard, brought his extremely rich contacts when he came to town in 1995. Some said the board changed then, from members who truly cared about the Colorado Plateau to ones who brought their big assets to the table. It turned into a “think tank” with interests other than the environment.
I decided to get the answers myself and I sat down at my internet browser and entered board name after board name looking for key words. Amazingly, there they were with each and every search—international, global, worldwide, United Nations, World Bank.
Only five of the 22 directors resided within their Colorado Plateau scope of interest. The remaining 17 were from all corners of the U.S.—New York City, Fort Worth, Aspen, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque.
Tons of information surfaced. Business and industrial achievements popped to the forefront, not environmental endeavors. There were major news and magazine articles, partnerships and deals, foundation and nonprofit boards, published books and papers, committees and meetings.
These were not your everyday leaders either. Their companies were the oldest, largest, and first in our nation. They were worldwide market leaders, global, the West’s leading authority, the Best in America, and nationally recognized experts and attorneys. The more I looked, the more I found.
There’s more, more, more... United Nations’ committees, World Bank conferences, international seminars, international inventions, economic development, zoning boards, intergovernmental panels, international ecotourism development, and Indian gaming.
I began noticing that some of the Trust’s officers and directors also served on the national boards of other big enviro groups—The Nature Conservancy (TNC), The Wilderness Society, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife. A few of them swapped positions amongst themselves and from group to group. My investigation into the national boards of the largest enviro groups confirmed investigative author Ron Arnold’s findings of similar global, corporate interests and their foundation funding to many enviro groups.
TNC seemed to be a major player in the Trust with president Geoff Barnard working for them for 23 years, office sharing in Flagstaff, and numerous crossover board members and paid staff. Barnard’s wife represented TNC when they moved to Flagstaff. Rumor has it that Jim Babbitt found Barnard and brought him to the Trust.
Most environmentalists are against monster corporate entities, but here they were, sitting on the board of our most “trusted” environmental group. Little ol’ Flagstaff had some real heavy hitters in its midst. I knew this was no ordinary board with its highly influential members and well-thought-out structure. It was a secret hidden in plain sight. We just never thought to look.
A few weeks into my research, I learned that the Trust had rejected a proposal from EcoResults to restore riparian areas on the Plateau with cows and the cattle stomp. EcoResults <www.ecoresults.org>, as previously reported by this magazine, uses “rural land stewards—ranchers and farmers” and a twist on holistic management to bring back barren land. Local ranchers have produced “some of the healthiest riparian areas in the U.S.” and have a multitude of endangered and threatened species moving onto their restored lands.
I thought this was the perfect solution to the grazing problem. President Barnard thought differently, saying they couldn’t be expected to change their minds about cows overnight. This seemed logical enough on the surface, but the Trust had known about Dan Dagget’s restoration techniques for seven years since they funded the printing of his book, “Beyond the Rangeland Conflict.”
Okay, I admit it, I was wrong. I thought they were environmentalists, but they surely aren’t. I thought they were my buddies, but I’ve been used and betrayed. Environmentalists need to realize who their partners are, and land-rights people should know that “worker bee” enviros are unaware of their leaders’ true characters.
My eyes have been opened, but I’ve got to ask, “Have yours?” My research didn’t stop at industrial wolves disguised as enviro sheep. It goes much, much deeper, way down to the bottom of the Rockefeller “think tanks.” This is only one small piece of a much larger pie.
Webster’s defines a legal conspiracy as “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”
It’s been coming together for quite some time. It’s right before our eyes. We need only look. American leaders have talked about it for decades, authors have exposed it, and the information is readily available. Implementation is accelerating, and we are feeling many of its effects—terrorized citizens stripped of their constitutional rights, economy tumbling out of control, seizure of public lands, killer droughts and forest fires, torrential rains, desperately hungry wildlife, distressed and dying forests.
The Trust’s board members led me straight into the conspiracy. The Rockefeller “think tanks” have different names, but they all have the same board and membership structure. Each works towards the ultimate goal of One World Order, fulfilling their particular piece of the total pie. It’s a pyramid effect, with the top groups planning strategies for their assigned geographical areas and setting timelines for completion. They implement the strategies through their numerous tentacles of lower subgroups that take action, track their progress and report back to the higher groups.
Membership is by invitation only. They supposedly want “the highest level unofficial group possible,” but actually have extensive U.S. government-appointed and elected officials. The U.S. Departments of State, Defense, Security and Treasury are well entrenched with multiple, high-ranking secretaries, ambassadors, trade reps, and chairmen. The remaining membership includes the world’s richest CEOs and financiers, union leaders, media, nongovernmental organizations and educational facilities. Harvard is the predominant university involved. Just like the Trust, the directors hop back and forth from group to group, and members are involved in many groups.
One of the first established was the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It’s the think tank for U.S. strategies. Marxist Edward Mandell House founded the CFR in 1921, after eight years as President Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor. House’s dream was to socialize America from the inside out, by taking control of both political parties, using them to implement the socialist government, and by establishing a central state bank.
During Wilson’s first year in office in 1913, the U.S. passed the Federal Reserve Act, establishing our central bank as the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB). This took control of money production and economy away from the U.S. Congress and gave it to an elite group of private bankers. William McDonough, FRB president, is a Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral member.
The Trilateral Commission (TC) is a replica of the CFR in structure and membership interests, but has strategies for broader geographical areas—the Americas (U.S., Canada, Mexico), European Union, Pacific Asia. The Trilateral countries’ “growing interdependence” from the 1970s is today “deepening into globalization” with “the need for shared thinking and leadership.”
The Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Foundation provided the critical initial funding for the CFR. David Rockefeller is listed as the founder, honorary chair and lifetime trustee of both the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Former or current elected Trilateral members are Vice President Dick Cheney; U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller IV, Charles Robb and William Roth Jr.; U.S. Representatives Jim Leach, Charles Rangel and former Speaker of the House Thomas Foley.
For some interesting reading, check out one of their books, “The Imperial Temptation: The New World Order and America’s Purpose” (CFR) or “21st Century Strategies of the Trilateral Countries: in Concert or Conflict?” (TC).
The world’s government is the United Nations. Just a few months ago, Switzerland finally joined, the last country to do so. The only other member “country” outstanding is the Catholic Church. After it joins, all sought-after, prospective members will have been enlisted.
Here’s a few of their recent happenings: China’s Accession to the World Trade Organization: The Red Work Begins; UN and Decolonization; International Conference on Financing for Development; Millennium Development Goals, New Agenda for the Development of Africa.
The world’s central bank is, of course, the World Bank with the International Monetary Fund (UN groups, both work together and are really the same entity). Developing countries borrow from traditional banks due to deficits. When they can’t meet their repayment schedule, the WB/IMF steps in and pays off their debt. In turn, the country must change its government to a democratic state (countries in transition) and meet standards that are impossible to reach. As government and economy collapse, regional chaos ensues. The WB and UN step in to create peace and take collateral for the unpaid debt. One theory says our federal lands are held by the WB for U.S. debt, but as yet this remains undocumented.
It’s time to wake up and to wake up all of those around you. We’ve run out of time for complacency. Do you care about your kids’ and grandkids’ futures? Do you really approve of the plan lying on the table? It’s time to stand up, exercise our rights and demand an America that works for Americans!
What happened to us—the land of the free and the brave? Free and brave are interlocked. You can’t have one without the other. It’s time to take it back. This whole scenario and Americans’ sleepiness reminds me of the Jews and Hitler. Do you remember what happened to the Jews who didn’t act?
Toni Thayer is a researcher, writer, political activist and consultant. Her website www.spirithelps.com has information on public lands "and the state of the Earth."
Reprinted from Range Magazine - Winter 2003, with permission. Subscription information: 1-800-RANGE-4-U
The Wildlands Project Comes to HidalgoCounty (Part 13)
Since I jumped in with both feet in my last article, I thought I’d follow through with another thoughtful piece this week.I used to avoid discussing the United Nation’s connection with the Wildlands Project.I was concerned most people would be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the agenda and consider me a little "tetched" in the head.However, since wild land proponents enjoy challenging the truth, I thought I’d give them more ammunition with which to shoot at me.
The Wildlands Project is not being implemented in just New Mexico.It was the basis for the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity, also known as the treaty of Rio de Janeiro since it was ratified at the United Nation’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
When it was presented to Congress in 1994, they never ratified it due to some outstanding work by a few individuals and organizations that were concerned with it's impacts on our society and ability to use our land.
However, the Clinton administration developed its ecosystem management policies to comply with the treaty.These policies are currently being implemented through agency rule changes, as directed by executive order.
According to Henry Lamb, Eco-logic online, “Executive Order 13158 signed by former President Clinton provided the authority necessary to comply with the treaty, including Section 7 which states: ‘Federal agencies taking actions pursuant to this Executive Order must act in accordance with international law…’The Bush administration reviewed this Executive Order, and decided to keep it in place.”
The Clinton administration was so intent on stopping all resource production in our nation they were not above using the United Nations.Alston Chase, syndicated columnist and environmental author, noted in one of his articles, “In September (1995), the Clinton Administration, fearing U.S. law would not prevent a planned gold mine near Yellowstone National Park, invited a UN committee to declare Yellowstone a World Heritage Site ‘in danger’”.On December 5th, the World Heritage Committee of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) complied with the Administration’s request.
A strong supporter of biological diversity, heritage sites and conservation according to the Wildland Project’s design, The Nature Conservancy has come up with a new campaign to protect and preserve biodiversity.Launched October 31, 2001, according to ENS news, “The Heart of the West campaign” is one of the “largest and most comprehensive conservation programs in Colorado’s history”.
The Conservancy’s goal is to generate “$75 million to protect more than a half million acres of habitat for Colorado’s imperiled species”. More than a million had already been raised in both cash and donations of land and “easements” at the time of publication.
The article continues, the Heart of the West campaign will be steered by the Nature Conservancy identifying “the state’s most threatened habitats and species” and by developing a “comprehensive conservation blueprint for ensuring their long term protection”.It will also draw upon “scientific research to identify and conserve the full spectrum of species, natural communities and ecological systems native to Colorado”.“This approach, known as ‘conservation by design,’ considers nature on nature’s terms”.
According to Mark Burget, state director for the Nature Conservancy, “We’re looking beyond county, state and even national boundaries to set our conservation goals, as Colorado’s ecosystems are co-dependent with other natural environments around the world”.
Never known for its modesty or lack of involvement, The Nature Conservancy in Arizona, was flattered when the United Nations wanted more information on their efforts to “solve water issues on the San Pedro River”, according to Holly Richter, Nature Conservancy’s Upper San Pedro program manager.
Testifying in Sweden during an international symposium, Richter “briefed representatives from 34 nations on the SanPedroRiver”.
Although the article goes on to claim that it “is recognized around the globe” that “local issues have to be solved by local people”, I have found very little evidence that the United Nations, our federal agencies or nongovernmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy will allow that to happen.It appears to me, they prefer top down decision making via executive order and agency rulemaking which serves to force compliance with the agenda.
Let’s take a look at how the UN is promoting the Wildlands Project in Canada.The following article explains the issue very well.
Wildlands and UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program
[Canada]
November 1999
By Doug Hindson
(Third in a series)
Last time we discussed the origins of the "conservation" movement. You will recall conservation was used to close land to human settlement and restrict access to natural resources in the western United States. Associated with the term "conservation" was a fledgling eugenics movement whose purpose was to engineer the human population.
In 1968 an International Biosphere Conference urged the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to establish a program that would manage the world's natural resources on a biosphere basis. UNESCO's program became known as Man and the Biosphere (MAB). A biosphere reserve or "eco-region" is a huge tract of land of several million hectares set aside for the exclusive preservation of nature--read natural resources. Over time human occupation and economic activity are gradually eliminated. While Canadians might participate in the management of these areas, policy is determined by UN treaty while Canadian sovereignty is severely eroded. Eventually private property is regulated out of existence. The economic benefactors include the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who later participate in running the bio-region, unelected bureaucrats, academic sycophants and transnational resource cartels.
The Niagara Escarpment, Ontario; Long Point, Ontario; Riding Mountain, Manitoba; Mont. Ste. Hilaire, Quebec; Waterton Lakes, Alberta and Isabella Bay, Baffin Island, NWT. have been declared part of UNESCO's World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Across Canada, more reserves are in the planning stages including one that covers central British Columbia from Alaska to Wyoming.
In a special 1992 edition of Wild Earth, plans were published for what the authors called "The Wildlands Project." Among the creators of Wildlands were Board members Dave Foreman, founder of the environmental terrorist group, Earth First!, Reed Noss editor of the journal "Conservation Biology" and Michael Soulé founder of the Society of Conservation Biologists. Foreman is also a Director of the Sierra Club. Harvey Locke, a Calgary lawyer and former president of the CanadianParks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is also a director of The Wildlands Project.
Wildlands will affect everyone in North America. According to Charles Mann and Mark Plummer writing in the June 1993 edition of "Science" magazine, Wildlands "calls for nothing less than resettling the entire continent. It calls for a network of wilderness reserves, human buffer zones and wildlife corridors stretching across huge tracts of land -- hundreds of millions of acres; as much as half the continent." Mike Coffman, Ph.D., President of Environmental Perspectives and author of Saviors of Earth says, "Under the plan, one quarter of (Canada and) the United States would be turned into wilderness where all human activity would literally cease. Another quarter of the land would be set aside in buffer zones where human activity would be severely limited." The migration habits of large mammals--wolves, bear, lynx or so-called endangered species--are employed as the reason to cease human activity in these bio-regions.
In the October/November, 1996 issue of The Ottawa Times, an article entitled World Eco-Congress Suggests Depopulation restates the goal of Wildlands, "is to return at least half of North America to wilderness. . . " Reporting on Harvey Locke's presentation to the Eco-Congress, The Times said a map presented to Locke's audience indicated that "Calgary and Edmonton fall within a buffer zone and would, therefore, have to be significantly depopulated and their industrial and technological activity severely regulated."
According to Wild Earth, an environmental magazine published by Foreman and his partners, "it exists to remind conservationists that . . all lands and waters should be left to the whims of Nature, not to the selfish desires of one species who chose for itself the misnomer, Homo Sapiens. Does The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly. Everything must go."
Within the bio-regions, all roads are to be torn up. The land is to be returned to the state which existed before the arrival of Columbus. Incredibly, a program called "Road Rip" has been established with Foreman, Noss and Soulé sitting on the Advisory Board. Road Rip's goal is to close roads, have them removed and prevent the construction of new ones.
In 1996, "The Seville Strategy," integrated The Wildlands Project into UNESCO's international Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program, linking it to the 1992 Earth Summit's Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. These two UN treaties bind the world to global governance as spelled out in the UN's Report of the Commission on Global Governance. [OxfordUniversity Press, (1995)] Currently, Wildlands is now being implemented across North America as an integral part of MAB.
In October, 1997, Prince Philip presented the North American Conservation Assessment/ North America's Living Legacy to a WashingtonD.C. news conference. After months of digging, a copy of the press package was obtained and a copy of the report was reviewed at WWF's Toronto office. The document was prepared by the United States and Canadian branches of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). What we found was alarming. The WWF document is a plan that would carve North America into 116 biosphere reserves or "eco-regions", in effect Balkanizing Canada and the United States. Most of the 116 "eco-regions" cut across one or more political boundaries, international, state or provincial. When implemented, Canada would cease to exist as a nation.
The nearly 600 pages of the WWF report describe each "eco-region", its major habitat type, the size of the planned area, the non- governmental organizations (NGOs) responsible for pushing the agenda forward and a number of other details relating to the biogeography and biodiversity of the region.
WWF's "Living Legacy" report refers to Ontario's plan as "eco-region 8". It covers more than 346,700 sq. km. (214,969 sq. mi.) of the resource-bearing lands of the southern Canadian shield in Ontario and Quebec and parts of western New York and eastern Vermont. Ontario has renamed Lands for Life, calling it "Ontario's Living Legacy."
Interestingly, the WWF report assigns the task of implementing their "eco-region 8" to The Wildlands League, the WWF, The Federation of Ontario Field Naturalists, the ultra radical Earthroots and several other lesser-known environmental NGO's.
Next, we will discuss what we have learned about how these "eco-regions" are being used in other countries in our hemisphere and in Africa. The public has been deceived not only by the Harris government, they have been used as pawns to help implement a revolutionary international program. The strategy used is a classic: the agenda is set by top down international treaty obligations; then upward pressure is applied by NGOs and a tiny segment of a well intentioned but dangerously misinformed public supplying the orchestrated "grassroots" support.
Doug Hindson passed away last year.He was geopolitical researcher and lived in rural northeast Toronto, Ontario. He was a regular contributor to the print media in his area, and was a panelist on "In Search of Understanding," a weekly television show. He was also a member of the Advisory Board of Sovereignty International, Inc.
Reprinted with permission from Henry Lamb’s Ecologic Online: <http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/>
Articles Related to Part 13
The Wildlands Project Comes to Hidalgo County (Part 14)
Some of my readers may have found my last two articles a little overwhelming. Initially, I found the claims of the United Nation’s involvement in the environmental movement more than a little questionable. I continued my research anyway.
It was by attending the Arizona and New Mexico Jaguar Conservation Team meetings that I learned of the ties to the United Nations.
Let’s look at the history of this species in the Southwest. Wildlife biologists have known for years that jaguars range in and out of our states. According to the historical records, Arizona has experienced 16 confirmed sightings over the past 150 years, New Mexico, only 7.
A jaguar was photographed by Warner Glenn in 1996. It created quite a stir. When another sighting occurred in the Baboquivari Mountains south of Tucson the excitement grew. Articles on the sightings began to appear in both Arizona and New Mexico newspapers.
After Warner Glenn published his book, “Eyes of Fire”, reporters began calling local residents to get their comments. Articles were published in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and at least one Japanese newspaper. Much to the chagrin of the ranchers and hunters, they were often portrayed as the villains. We learned later The Nature Conservancy orchestrated much of the national media blitz.
These sighting, however, became more than just newsworthy when federal and state wildlife agencies and various environmental organizations jumped on the bandwagon!
Debate soon began as to whether the species should be listed as endangered in the United States, or whether a conservation agreement between the states should be developed to conserve the species. During the frenzy it became obvious pressure was being applied to the ranching community to support the CA. Ultimately, however, we ended up with both the federal listing of the species as endangered and the conservation agreement.
Eleven (11) federal and state agencies signed on to The Memorandum of Agreement for the Conservation Assessment and Strategy. The Conservation Team did, however, enlist a group of scientists to be a part of their Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). The leading scientist on the Group, Alan Rabinowitz, is a world renowned jaguar specialist and director of Science for the Wildlife Conservation Society’s International Programs at the Bronx Zoo in New York City.
Dr. Rabinowitz helped establish the first-ever jaguar reserve in Belize’s Cockscomb Basin. Working with the Belize government, Dr. Rabinowitz relocated an entire community from within the boundaries of the reserve in order to conserve the species.
In a report to the Malpai Borderlands Group, Dr. Rabinowitz wrote, "the fact that the southwestern United States is the northern limit of the modern jaguar's range is not by chance. The more open, dry habitats of the southwest are marginal for the jaguar in terms of water, cover and prey densities. The nature of this landscape, ranging from open grassland/shrub communities to mountain woodlands, is a product of both past climatic influences dating back to the Pleistocene, and to the relatively recent human activities and settlement patterns in the area."
Rabinowitz was unequivocal that jaguar habitat no longer existed in the United States. Although he applauded the Service for listing the jaguar as endangered, he agreed with the agency that protecting “critical habitat for the jaguar was not necessary, since there is no area in the U.S. critical to the jaguar’s survival”.
Most of the Conservation Team agreed with his findings and suggested scientific research should begin in Mexico where several breeding pairs of jaguars were thought to exist.
It was during our discussions on where to begin research activities that Terry Johnson, Chief of the Non-Game Branch of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, suggested the Team focus on Mexico by inviting ranchers and wildlife biologists to participate in the Conservation Assessment.
Some members questioned by what authority the Team could expand the Assessment and Strategy into Mexico. Mr. Johnson suggested by treaties signed between the two nations. When pressed for which treaties, he supplied the Team with a “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management”. The committee consists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada.
According to the MOU, it was the Committee’s desire to “facilitate the conservation of species and the ecosystems on which they depend”. The three nations entered as “Parties” to the various Treaties and Conventions providing cooperation in the Spring of 1996. Seven Treaties were specifically mentioned in the MOU, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which had never been ratified by the U.S. Congress. And, the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, a side agreement to NAFTA.
It should be noted that Terry Johnson started his career with Arizona Game and Fish when the Heritage Data Base was transferred to the states by The Nature Conservancy. Prior to the transfer, he was employed by the Conservancy. Working his way up through the state agency, Mr. Johnson has been instrumental in the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf into the U.S. and the Conservation Agreement to preserve Prairie Dogs.
About 3 years after its formation, representatives from various environmental groups started attending the Team meetings.
Did Dr. Rabinowitz’s reports and the consensus of the Team to begin research in Mexico “enlighten” some of these representatives? No!
Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, wrote an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal, entitled “Near-Decimated Jaguar Deserves a NM Home”. Why? Because he wants to see jaguars romping in his backyard of the Gila National Forest near his home in Pinos Altos, NM.
Among other things he claimed, “Too many jaguars have already died and its range also is shrinking in Mexico. It is time to listen to the scientists, protect jaguar habitat, stop the poisoning and plan for a reintroduction into our still-wild canyons and forest that were the traditional home to big-spotted cats”.
Although another photograph of a jaguar was taken by a trip camera in southern Arizona December 2001, one can hardly claim we have an abundance of sightings. In fact, most sighting reports turn out to be large, black house cats. Every 6 months the Team meets to review the “sightings reports”, “kill verifications”, and “legal protection” which have changed very little since the conception of the Team.
The “education” portion of the Conservation Assessment has degenerated into a curriculum that teaches students what a jaguar looks like, his characteristics as well as his prey base, but does little to teach critical thinking skills, or expose students to some of the controversy surrounding the Endangered Species Act, or its ramifications, to the dismay of some of the Team members.
The Team has developed, as a part of its “educational program”, a cute little brochure that asks, “Have You Seen This Animal?” with a picture of a jaguar on its front cover and numbers to call if sighted.
With assistance from The Nature Conservancy, mapping potential habitat in the two states has evolved into a new map that closely resembles the Sky Island’s map of the 70,000 square mile preserve it covets in New Mexico, Arizona and Mexico. The new jaguar map stretches to the Rio Grande near Las Cruces, and north to the Gila National Forest, although there is little scientific evidence to justify the reach.
With the help of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife a new term has been coined for “critical habitat” in this U.S. The Service calls it “occupied range”, which currently includes all of Hidalgo County, and “occupied habitat”, which includes the back bone of the New Mexico portion of the Peloncillo Mountains into Arizona. They’ve yet to delineate these areas in Arizona and Mexico, but give them time, they’re working on it.
No doubt the map also includes a huge tract of land already planned as part of a U.N. Biosphere Reserve in the Sierra San Luis Mountains south of Agua Prieta, Mexico.
In an article entitled, "The Great Green Con-Trick", Dr. Patrick Moore, renowned ecologist and founder of Greenpeace, is quoted extensively. He condemns his fellow ecologists for “abandoning science” to follow “agendas that have little to do with saving the ear