Thread: Our National Forest up for sale

Seems everything in our Country is up for sale to the highest bidder

Lands Potentially Eligible for Sale by State and National Forest

Previous Page

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

This was announced last year but I see they have bulldozed it through in spite of opposition. You can bet big money developers are behind it along with the timber and mining lobby! Does anyone in government care anymore about preserving our resources?

I was stunned and sickened to learn that most of our National Parks are now under the control of the United Nations thanks to Clinton. It is called the biosphere project. I didn't even know that land was sold out from under all of us!

ProudAmericanFamily wrote:

I was stunned and sickened to learn that most of our National Parks are now under the control of the United Nations thanks to Clinton. It is called the biosphere project.

More information please, maybe a link? Thanks.

Originally Posted by MW

ProudAmericanFamily wrote:

I was stunned and sickened to learn that most of our National Parks are now under the control of the United Nations thanks to Clinton. It is called the biosphere project.

More information please, maybe a link? Thanks.

This is a good start but there are a thousand links out there.
Look up
UNESCO (United Nations Education Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Also World Heritage foundation, and
National parks biospheres...


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/search.asp

I will find more links and add them to this one....
I know it makes me sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist but all you have to do is read..it is out there in black and white!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=49100

The U.N.'s global land grab

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 4, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



The Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, or SAMAB, began in the 1970s when UNESCO recognized the 571,000-acre Great Smoky Mountains National Park as a site worthy to be included in its growing global network of Biosphere Reserves. Neither Congress, nor the legislatures of either affected state, reviewed, debated or approved the designation.

Today, SAMAB encompasses nearly 37 million acres. Still, neither Congress, nor any of the affected states' legislatures have reviewed, debated or approved the designation or the expansion.

How can this happen? SAMAB is an "interagency" organization of representatives of several federal and state agencies that have some jurisdiction within the area. SAMAB provides the mechanism for these agencies to coordinate their work to advance a cooperative agenda.

Since neither Congress, nor the state legislatures review the work of the SAMAB, who sets the agenda?

The Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture, where many of the SAMAB agencies reside, are members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The IUCN is accredited by, and consultant to, both UNESCO and the United Nations. The IUCN was, and continues to be, instrumental in the development and implementation of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program.


The agenda for U.N. Biosphere Reserves is set in UNESCO documents known as the Statutory Framework and the Seville Strategy, both of which were developed with "consultation" from the IUCN.

Biosphere Reserves, by definition, include "core wilderness areas" protected from human use, which are surrounded by "buffer zones," which are managed for conservation objectives. Those are surrounded by "zones of cooperation," which are "laboratories for sustainable development."

Through "restoration" and "rehabilitation," wilderness areas and buffer zones are to expand, pushing the zone of cooperation ever outward.

The Bowater Corporation has offered to sell 100,000 non-contiguous acres of land, scattered across 14 counties of East Tennessee, most of which is within, or adjacent to, the SAMAB. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental organization, is leading an effort to get the state of Tennessee to purchase the land for an estimated price of $300 million.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is also a member of the IUCN. Bureaucrats from these agencies and representatives from member NGOs meet regularly through the IUCN to shape policies that are adopted by the U.N. and UNESCO. At home, working through "interagency" groups such as SAMAB, they implement the policies they helped to develop.

A spokesman for the NRDC told the Nashville Tennessean that the area is a "biogem," one of the "most endangered wildernesses in America." The Tennessee Environmental Council, and the Dogwood Alliance are both long-time supporters of the Biosphere Reserve agenda and are actively promoting the state's purchase of the land.

Aside from the initial price tag of about $300 million that will have to be paid by Tennessee taxpayers, the loss of property tax to the 14 affected counties would be about $700,000 – each and every year. The remaining taxpayers would have to make up the loss through higher tax rates – each and every year.

While the environmental organizations claim that the land will produce new revenues from "eco-tourism," the truth is that much of the land will be shut down and "restored" or "rehabilitated" into wilderness or buffer zones. The private lands that remain between the non-contiguous segments of Bowater land will be targeted for acquisition by environmental groups and government. In short order, the people will be forced off the land altogether, and SAMAB will expand even further.

The SAMAB "interagency" management structure is an excellent example of how professional bureaucrats have been able to bypass elected policy-making bodies of government to implement their own vision of how land use should be managed. Policy by professionals, rather than policy by elected officials, is one of the first principles of sustainable development.

There is a growing movement across America to shut down all the U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States. Biosphere Reserve proponents contend that this would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater since, the proponents claim, there are many benefits provided by the Biosphere Reserves.

Biosphere Reserves will be among the hottest topics discussed at a national conference this summer. The discussion will identify reasons to retain and reasons to end the Biosphere Reserve program. The outcome is expected to produce legislation that will either retain, end or modify the Biosphere Reserve program in the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related special offer:

"GREEN WITH ENVY: Exposing radical environmentalists' assault on Western civilization"




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Here is a really good one.
Notice that this information is all coming from different sources!


http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/seventyonemore.htm

Seventy One More United Nation's Heritage Sites Planned
Many Americans have been disturbed to find that there are 22 areas in this nation that have been designated as United Nations' World Heritage Sites. These sights are natural places such as parks or cultural monuments like Tom Jefferson's home, Monticello.

As a result of a UN treaty called "The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage," such sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations' Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has gained control of sovereign American territory.

However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because a quick look at the UNESCO web site on the World Wide Web reveals a list of 71 more sites, located within 32 states, that have been proposed for future United Nations' World Heritage Areas.

Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the UN designations. Once the additional 71 sites are in place, that percentage of American park land will soar.

The new sites will include the Washington Monument, the original Bell Telephone Laboratory and the Brooklyn Bridge. These will be added to the existing list that includes Independence Hall, Yellowstone Park and the Statue of Liberty.

The list also includes vast areas of park lands and wilderness areas such as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, Joshua Tree National Monument in California, and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Texas, to name just a few.

Supporters of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great "honor" to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.

If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?

Who Owns World Heritage Sites?

It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.

To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in the Clinton Administration, including Vice President Al Gore, see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.

There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration's Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.

The designation of United Nations' World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.

Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of, these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.

That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first "endangered" World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150 MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. Such a buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World Heritage Sites.

Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate.

Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the "Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program." Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to "create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves."

A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The "Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention" state:

"In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee."

In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren't to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property.

This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Clinton Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power.

By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.

In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands.

That is why it is charged that World Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You won't find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the "intent" and the "implementation" of the policies.

There Must Be Congressional Action To Stop It

The Clinton Administration is moving rapidly to implement unratified UN treaties and is working hand in hand with UNESCO to designate still more World Heritage Sites. None of this has been authorized by Congress.

Included in the 68 percent of our national parks, preserves and monuments already designated as United Nations' World Heritage Sites, UNESCO-designated Biosphere Reserves cover an area about the size of Colorado. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere reserves in the United States. Now UNESCO is planning 71 more. The private property rights of millions of Americans will be at stake when those designations are made.

To stop this unrelenting assault on American sovereignty, Congressman Don Young of Alaska introduced H.R. 901 (The American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act) in the early days of the 105th Congress. The bill reestablishes congressional oversight over UN designations and ensures that public input is allowed in the process. It is the only way property owners will have to protect their rights in the process. The bill was passed in the House by a vote of 236 to 191.

But before the bill can become law, it must pass the Senate. Finally a Senate Sponsor has been found. Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has introduced S.2098.

Senator Campbell is now urgently seeking co-sponsors for the bill in order to get consideration in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, chaired by Senator Frank Murkowski.

But Senator Murkowski will not take action on the bill unless there is a major show of support from Americans across the nation. The bill is controversial and is vigorously opposed by the massive environmental lobby. In fact, environmentalists refused to even participate in Committee hearings when the bill was debated in the House of Representatives.

But "time" has now become the worst enemy of the American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act (S.209. Because if Senate action is not taken before the 105th Congress adjourns in October, the bill will die. The process will have to start all over again in the 106th Congress.

The American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act (S.209 represents the best great hope that Americans, who love their sovereign nation, have ever been able to muster against the United Nations' land grab. To save our liberties, S.2098 must not be allowed to die. Now is the time to mount a massive fight in the U.S. Senate to pass it.




© 2006 American Policy Center

Web site design and maintenance

The Statue Of Liberty is included on this list!

http://fp.thesalmons.org/lynn/world.heritage.html


http://fp.thesalmons.org/lynn/wh-usa.html

Here is a list of America's National Parks.
But the entire list for the world is there as well.
Over 830 sites.
Complete with a map.

World Heritage Sites in the United States
General information on sites in the USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado
(37.25 N 108.45 W) -- satellite image
In the sixth century AD, the Anasazi, or "Ancient Ones," established villages on the high, flat land in southwestern Colorado. Mesa Verde contains the most complete record of Anazasi Indian culture in existence. Some 3,800 sites have been recorded, including one particular complex, today called the Cliff Palace, comprising more than 200 rooms.

Mesa Verde National Park
Mesa Verde National Park (NPS)
Mesa Verde National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Mesa Verde National Park (GORP)
Mesa Verde Museum Association
Castle Rock Pueblo
Four Corners Postcard: Mesa Verde
Visit Mesa Verde
Postage stamp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming/Idaho/Montana
(44.13-45.12 N 109.17-111.17 W) -- satellite image
Yellowstone National Park, the world's first national park, contains 2.2 million acres packed with 10,000 thermal displays and an extensive array of wildlife, scenery and recreation opportunities. Mammoth Hot Springs and Old Faithful are two of the park's major attractions.

Yellowstone National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Yellowstone National Park (GORP)
Yellowstone National Park (NPS)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Yellowstone Net
Yellowstone park planner
UNESCO MAB biosphere reserve directory: Yellowstone
Yellowstone National Park
1995 Reintroduction of the wolves of Yellowstone Park
Tourist Info
Photos // more photos
Postage stamps // more stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everglades National Park, Florida
(24.83-25.92 N 80.33-81.50 W) -- satellite image
The everglades, or River of Grass as the Native Americans called it is formed by a river of fresh water 6 inches deep and 50 miles wide that flows slowly across the flat expanse of land at the southern tip of Florida. In 1947, the Everglades National Park was established and now covers 1.4 million acres. Being geographically at the meeting point of several climatic zones, a diverse variety of plants can be found from tropical palms and mangroves to temperate ash and oak, and even cacti and yucca. It is also home to several threatened species including the manatee.

Everglades National Park (GORP)
Everglades National Park (NPS)
A Park for the World
Everglades National Park (US/ICOMOS)
UNESCO MAB biosphere reserve directory: Everglandes
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Virtual Tourist
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
(35.72-36.75 N 111.60-113.93 W) -- satellite image
"unofficial" Grand Canyon National Park
Grand Canyon National Park (NPS)
Grand Canyon National Park (US/ICOMOS)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Grand Canyon Info
Visibility - Reducing Organic Aerosols in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park
Air Pollution in the Grand Canyon
Air Quality in the Grand Canyon
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independence Hall, Pennsylvania
(39.95 N 75.15 W) -- satellite image
The Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) were signed in this Philadelphia building.

Independence Hall
Independence National Historic Park (NPS)
Independence Hall (US/ICOMOS)
Postage stamp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redwood National Park, California
(41.07-41.82 N 123.88-124.17 W) -- satellite image
Redwood National Park contains the 3 tallest trees on earth. The giant redwoods, reaching 350 feet, now survive only in California and Oregon. Descendants of the giant evergreens that grew during the age of the dinosaurs, redwoods thrived in moist temperate regions of the world. They take 400 years to mature and some of the survivors are more than 2,000 years old.

Redwood National Park (GORP)
Redwood National Park (NPS)
Redwood National Park (US/ICOMOS)
WCMC: Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky
(37.187 N 86.103 W) -- satellite image
Mammoth Cave National Park, with more than 345 miles of explored passageways, is the longest known cave system in the world.

Mammoth Cave National Park (NPS)
Mammoth Cave National Park (US/ICOMOS)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Map
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Olympic National Park
(47.48-48.18 N 123.12-124.70 W) -- satellite image
Olympic National Park, from gorp.
Olympic National Park (NPS)
Olympic National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Sequim and the North Olympic Peninsula including their Olympic National Park slide show
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Geocaching World Heritage Visit
Postage stamp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, Illinois
(38.659 N 90.061 W) -- satellite image
Located 13 km north-east of St Louis, Missouri, Cahokia is the largest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico. It was occupied primarily during the Mississippian period (800-1400). It is an example of a complex agricultural chiefdom society, with many satellite mound centers and numerous outlying hamlets and villages. The site includes Monks Mound, the largest prehistoric earthwork in the Americas.

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site (US/ICOMOS)
Cahokia Mounds Links
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
Monks Mound
Aerial Survey
Detail quad map
Geocaching log // Waymarking entry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina/Tennessee
(35.43-35.78 N 83.75-84.00 W) -- satellite image
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NPS)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GORP)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Visibility Impairment from Air Pollution Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Map
Smog in the Smokys
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Juan National Historic Site and La Fortaleza, Puerto Rico
(18.45 N 66.10 W) -- satellite image
A series of defensive structures were built between the 15th and 19th centuries at this strategic point in the Caribbean Sea to protect the city and the Bay of San Juan.

La Fortaleza-San Juan National Historic Site, Puerto Rico
San Juan National Historic Site (NPS)
Architecture in San Juan
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Statue of Liberty, New York
(40.67 N 74.00 W) -- satellite image
Standing at the entrance to New York harbor, the statue was a gift of friendship from the people of France to the United States to commemorate the 100th anniversary of American independence. It was made in Paris by the French sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, with help on the metalwork from Gustave Eiffel. It has welcomed millions of immigrants to the United States of America since it was inaugurated in 1866.

The Statue of Liberty (NPS)
The Statue of Liberty (US/ICOMOS)
Restoration
Great Buildings
Statue of Liberty (picture)
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yosemite National Park, California
(37.50-28.18 N 119.20-119.88 W) -- satellite image
Yosemite is located in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Its hanging valleys, waterfalls, cirque lakes, polished domes, moraines, and u-shaped valleys offer a view of the many types of granite reliefs fashioned by glaciation. The alpine wilderness, groves of giant Sequoia trees and the specatcular valley landscape of Yosemite make it a pre-eminent natural marvel.

Yosemite National Park (NPS)
NPS Official Yosemite Page
Yosemite National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Yosemite National Park (Gorp)
Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties (WCMC)
Air quality overview
Photos
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monticello, and the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
(38.00 N 78.50 W) -- satellite image
In addition to writing the American Declaration of Independence and being third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was also a talented architect of neoclassical buildings. He designed his plantation home, Monticello (1769-1809) and his ideal 'academical village' (1817-26) which is still the heart of the University of Virginia. Neoclassicism is seen in the relationship of the buildings with nature and the blending of functionalism and symbolism.

Monticello - The Home of Thomas Jefferson
World Heritage List Nomination
University of Virginia
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico
(36.06 N 107.97 W) -- satellite image
Nearly 1,000 years ago, Chaco Canyon was a center of Anasazi life. The Anasazi farmed the lowlands and built great masonry towns connected by a far-reaching network of roads.

Chaco Culture National Historic Park (US/ICOMOS)
Chaco Culture National Historic Park (NPS)
Casa Rinconada
Four Corners Postcard: Chaco
Chaco Culture National Historical Park
Chaco Park
Postage stamps
Pueblo Bonita Images:
Exterior view (jpeg)
interior (jpeg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, including Mauna Loa, Hawaii
(19.18-19.73 N 155.02-155.65 W) -- satellite image

Police car on the Big Island
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (NPS)
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (GORP)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
UNESCO MAB biosphere reserve directory: Hawaiian Islands
Postage stamp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pueblo de Taos
(36.40 N 105.57 W) -- satellite image
This adobe settlement consisting of dwellings and ceremonial buildings represents the culture of the Pueblo Indians of Arizona and New Mexico.

Taos Pueblo (US/ICOMOS)
Taos Pueblo - A Thousand Years of Tradition
Great Buildings
Photo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carlsbad Caverns National Park
(32.167 N 104.50 W) -- satellite image
Southeastern New Mexico is famous for it's caverns and caves. Carlsbad Caverns National Park was established in 1930 and contains 46,766 acres of rugged mountain land and 80 caves. The park's most famous cave, Carlsbad Cavern, is one of the world's biggest underground caves. It has a mapped length of 27 miles. The cavern is decorated with stalagmites and stalactites, flow stones, columns and cave pearls, formations which began over 500,000 years ago. One of the largest chambers is called the Big Room. It is 1,800 feet long and 1,100 feet wide.

Carlsbad Caverns National Park (US/ICOMOS)
Carlsbad Caverns National Park (NPS)
WCMC Descriptions of Natural World Heritage Properties
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Heritage Sites in Canada and the USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kluane/Wrangell St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek
(60.00 N 141.00 W) -- satellite image

UNESCO designated the following parks in the Yukon as a World Heritage Site. It is the largest internationally protected area in the world.

Kluane National Park, Yukon, Canada
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Reserve
Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, USA (added 1992)
Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park, British Colombia (added 1994)
The Tatshenshini-Alsek river system contributes 95% of the chinook salmon, 90% of the sockeye salmon and 75% of the coho salmon for the multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry in the Dry Bay area of the Gulf of Alaska. This river system is one of only three major salmon-bearing rivers on the northern Pacific coast, with an important sustenance fishery for the people of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations being found at Klukshu.

Quote from Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (NPS)
Wrangell-St. Elias (ParkNet)
Glacier Bay National Park (NPS)
Images of Glacier Bay
National Parks in Alaska
Alaska's Tongass Forest
Postage stamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park
(49.00 N 113.90 W) -- satellite image
In 1932 Glacier National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park were designated by Canada and the United States as an "international peace park," the first such joint recognition in the world.

WCMC Data Sheets
Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Gorp)
Glacier National Park (NPS)
Tourist Info
Postage stamp // more postage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the World Heritage List

Lynn Salmon <>{

Last updated: April 18, 2007

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/wildlandtom.htm

CASE STUDY OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT, THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE

PROGRAM, THE WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM & THE WILDLANDS

PROJECT IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM.

by Tom McDonnell
(June, 1996)

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming makes an excellent case study of how the international community, federal agencies and environmentalists are using a variety of tools to fully implement the practices of Conservation Biology. Ideally, these groups wish to see Yellowstone National Park become a core protected area free from all human activity; surrounded by a buffer zone of extremely limited access; connected by corridors to other ecosystems in Canada, Colorado and Washington. The region has been targeted by the environmentalists in what they call their Wildlands Project. The region is included in the east- side ecosystem management proposal being developed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. And the region has been designated a United Nation's World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve by the international community.

Yellowstone National Park was designated a United Nations World Heritage Area in 1978. In the original request for designation as a World Heritage site, a buffer zone made up of the six surrounding National Forests was proposed. Part of this buffer zone was established in 1978 with the designation of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness area to the north and east of the Park. However, this designation excluded a mining area near the North border of Yellowstone, as a result of the U.S. Geological Survey's prediction of future mineral development. Part of this excluded region had already been mined. As early as 1875, ore was smelted in the region. By 1952 gold production in this area made Park County the third largest gold production area in the state of Montana.

In the late 1980's, Yellowstone received a double United Nations designation when it was also designated a biosphere reserve. Using the biosphere designation as their authority, federal agencies and environmentalists made their first attempt to implement an 18 million acre buffer zone in 1990 through what is known as the Greater Yellowstone Vision Document. This document was met with a huge outcry by the public and the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Directors of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service who formed a regional coordinating committee to manage the ecosystem were all removed from their positions the following year.

In 1993, Michael Finley was named Yellowstone's park superintendent. He had already established a reputation in the Everglades National Park for getting the park designated as a United nations World Heritage site in danger.

Unknowingly, Crown Butte Mines was about to become the poster child for environmental group's second attempt at implementing a buffer zone around Yellowstone. In 1987, Crown Butte Mines began developing a project that would extract an estimated $750 million worth of gold, silver and copper from an old mining district that sat one mountain range away from Yellowstone National Park. The New World mining project is unique in that the region had already been mined since before the turn of the century. Past mining activity had stopped a mere 100 feet from the rich gold deposit that now forms the basis of the mining plan. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Crown Butte's proposal to build the New World mining project was subjected to intense review and fact based research by more than 20 state and federal agencies for close to three years. Crown Butte was moving the mining proposal forward under some of the most stringent procedures in the world to ensure safety for the environment from all activities of the proposed mine.

To help maintain environmental quality, Crown Butte is proposing a cyanide-free process for removal of the gold in its underground mines. Even more importantly, the new mine will pay for the general reclamation of old mine dumps and the back-filling of historic operations. The mining company agreed to clean up Fisher Creek, which runs directly through the old mining district, and to clean up 250,000 tons of historic tailings in an adjoining watershed which have polluted a creek flowing directly into Yellowstone Park for over 50 years.

What the mine didn't foresee was that the United States was party to the United Nations Convention on World Heritage, and environmental groups such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and American Rivers, in concert with George Frampton, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, were about to short circuit domestic law by calling on the international environmental community to intervene in the project.

Under paragraph 56 of the United Nations Environmental Scientific and Cultural Organization's operational guidelines, UNESCO is "particularly concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the List..." Therefore, UNESCO established the "Guidelines for the inclusion of properties in the list of World Heritage in Danger." Under paragraph 69, the nation "state" may request assistance from UNESCO if the state feels a designated heritage area is in danger. If a request is received, UNESCO is to establish a committee to work in consultation with the state party (in this case the Department of the Interior) to adopt a program for corrective measures.

On February 28, 1995, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and 13 other environmental groups wrote a letter to the United Nations Environmental Scientific and Cultural Organization asking UNESCO's World Heritage Committee to initiate an investigation of whether Yellowstone National Park should be included on the list of World Heritage in Danger as outlined under Section 69 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. In addition to the New World Mining Project, these groups cited increased levels of tourism, geothermal development, road building, home building, new population clusters and efforts to control brucellosis in the park's bison as some of the threats to Yellowstone. In the same letter, these groups specifically stated, "[f]inally, the World Heritage Committee's Operational Guidelines recognize the need to protect World Heritage Sites from incompatible activities beyond their boundaries and specifically recommend the establishment of buffer zones" around protected properties.

On March 6th Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre wrote to the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, George Frampton, about UNESCO's possible intervention into the NEPA and mine permitting processes as written under American law. In this letter, von Droste stated:

"While we have taken note that the conservation organizations have requested that the World Heritage Secretariat involve itself in the EIS process, we simply are not staffed to do so. We could...request IUCN as our technical advisors, to review the Environmental Impact Statement."

"It is important to note that Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention obliges the State Party to protect, conserve present and transmit to future generations World Heritage sites for which they are responsible. This obligation extends beyond the boundary of the site and Article 5(A) recommends that State Parties integrate the protection of sites into comprehensive planning programmes. This, if proposed developments will damage the integrity of Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary."

Examples of the need to act beyond park boundaries are found at the Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park and Glacier Bay National Park, all World Heritage sites. In two of the sites the Government of British Columbia acted to close major mining operations rather than risk possible damage to downstream World Heritage values in both Canada and the United States.

"Clearly if there are threats to World Heritage values the State Party has a responsibility to act. If enabling legislation is not adequate, new legislation should be considered, as was the case in Australia with respect to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site."
On June 27, 1995, George Frampton, in response to the UNESCO letter discussed, Interior's sympathies towards the environmental concerns, and requested what was to be considered foreign intervention to American environmental laws as he wrote:

"With respect to the questions which you have raised regarding possible threats to the Yellowstone National Park World Heritage Site, Secretary Babbitt and I are informed of the non-governmental conservation group concerns as transmitted to the Centre. The Secretary and the National Park Service have clearly expressed strong reservations with the New World Mine proposal."

"While President Clinton has said publicly that he wants to see the highest level of environmental analysis employed so that the impacts can be accurately determined, it is unclear whether several specific concerns of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, of other agencies, and of the conservation community will be taken into account in the EIS process."

"Until the scope and nature of the analyses are better defined and the matter is satisfactorily resolved without jeopardizing the values of Yellowstone, we believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and that the Committee should be informed that the property as inscribed on the World Heritage List is in danger."

"Therefore, I wish to suggest that you and/or other representatives of the Committee, and, in particular, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) make an interim assessment of the New World Mine proposal and the related Environmental Impact Assessment process for the benefit of the Committee and report the findings to the Bureau and the full Committee during the December 1995 General Session."

It should be noted that Frampton's statements about the competency of the NEPA process and Yellowstone being "in danger" were made without any scientific evidence. On December 1, 1995, five months after Frampton had given Interior's opinion that international intervention was needed and Yellowstone was in danger, he wrote to UNESCO saying:

"The purpose of this document (the draft EIS) is to provide decision makers with relevant information to assist in selecting a preferred alternative and making final permit and other decisions. Upon release of the document a 60-day period of public and agency review will begin. Thus, until early 1996 when the draft document is published for public review, there will not be a factual basis for determining the full range of impacts to the resources of the Park. Moreover, until that time, it will not be possible to evaluate all of the studies and analyses that need to be part of such an assessment."

On July 7, 1995 the World Heritage Committee informed the Department of the Interior that it would send a delegation to comply with requests from the National Park Service and by the Assistant Secretary of Fish & Wildlife. The committee, however, stated that, "Due to the lack of available funds at the World Heritage Fund, the United States will assume the costs of the mission. The mission will study not only the mining project but also all the problems affecting Yellowstone (apparently very numerous)." With this letter, environmentalists and the administration initiated a full scale media blitz to soften public sentiment for UNESCO's arrival.

On August 25th, President Clinton flew to Jackson Hole and met with environmentalists. Following the meeting, Clinton announced a two year moratorium on all mining claims on 19,000 acres of federal land near Yellowstone National Park. This action seemed unnecessary since it had absolutely no impact on the New World project several watersheds away. The withdrawal did appear, however, to be an attempt by the administration to prejudice the media and public into believing that the danger of large scale mining development in the region was greater than it truly was, and into believing the area to be mined was pristine and untouched. The truth was that the area in which the New World project sat had already been mined, and most of the ore body was on private land which Crown Butte had purchased. At the same time, U.S. News and World Report ran an article in which the administration condemned the mining project.

Editorials, however, began appearing accusing George Frampton and Michael Finley of engineering the United Nations visit to sabotage the mine review after Superintendent Finley admitted in the Billings Gazette that "the National Park Service fears the permitting process, led by the U.S. Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality, will overlook alternatives to the mining company's plans." This fear was also backed by a statement found in a March 6, 1995 letter from UNESCO to George Frampton. It was soon to become evident that the main focus of the UNESCO tour was much more than for purposes of discussing the environmental costs and benefits of the New World Mine.

On September 7th, 1995, a delegation appointed by UNESCO's Bureau of the World Heritage Committee arrived in the United States for a five day tour to evaluate the threats to Yellowstone. In regards to the mine permitting process and NEPA analysis, the World Heritage Committee's Chairman, Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, only stated that "The U.S. permitting process took a fragmented approach to weighing the impacts of the mine." According to Wyoming's Casper Star Tribune:,

"The committee was more interested in how a coherent ecosystem management strategy to protect Yellowstone could be fashioned out of competing laws and agency priorities."

"Committee Chairman Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand...[stated] that as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention Treaty, the United States has a duty to take steps to preserve the Yellowstone ecosystem across administrative boundaries of the park."

"Executive Director Bernd von Droste of Germany, asked if the EIS would be developed with the concept of critical buffer zones around the park in mind. "It's a bit too much piece-meal, doesn't speak to the biological interactions" outside park boundaries, he commented."

"Crown Butte President Joe Baylis asked what would constitute the boundary of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Moderator Tony Barnosky of the Mountain Resources Center at Montana State University replied that those boundaries have not been firmly established. There is general agreement that the ecosystem encompasses parts of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, an area between 14 and 18 million square acres. Yellowstone Park itself covers roughly 2.3 million acres of the area."

The Billings Gazette in Montana gave a similar account of the meeting, saying:

"An international delegation examining a proposed gold mine near Yellowstone National Park said the United States may be overlooking the commitment it made, by signing a treaty, to maintain an uncompromised buffer zone around the national park. The president of the World Heritage Committee said he is inclined to suggest that the international panel urge the United States to expand Yellowstone Park to encompass millions of acres of national forest that surround it. Certainly the forest areas around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem. All these lands must have protection so their integrity is not threatened, said Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, who heads the World Heritage Committee, which operates under the administrative umbrella of the United Nations."

"By requesting that Yellowstone be designated a World Heritage Site, as it was in 1978, the United States in effect pledged to manage the surrounding lands in a way that would protect the park, said Bernd von Droste, director of the World Heritage Committee."

These statements were met the next day with a huge outcry from the press, the public, and from the Congressional delegations of the surrounding states. Wichiencharoen quickly withdrew his statement, and Montana newspapers noted that the World Heritage Committee changed the direction of its discussions from buffer zones to the fact that "the U.S. Forest Service should manage the some 11 million acres of adjacent national forest to avoid projects that would stain the entire Yellowstone region." Newspapers went on to note committee discussions which indicated that, "Land managers should simply keep undisturbed regions undisturbed."

Dropping all discussion on the issue of buffer zones, the World Heritage Committee turned its attention to addressing the other threats to Yellowstone. The Billings Gazette covers discussion concerning other threats to Yellowstone as follows:

"The sometimes-tense discussion for the delegation's benefit on Monday jumped from the mine to logging to a sort of reverse American imperialism. Four representatives of the World Heritage Committee wound up a four-day visit to Yellowstone on Monday by reserving a conclusion on the mine plan, but hoisting red flags on other park fronts: geothermal development, tourist overcrowding and threatened grizzly bears"

"Park managers in Yellowstone and elsewhere must also figure out ways to better manage people who may otherwise love this park to death, von Droste said."

The Livingston Enterprise expanded on the additional threats identified by the World Heritage Committee:

"First and foremost, the panel urged Americans to do whatever it takes to protect the underground plumbing system that feeds the park's famed geysers, bubbling mud pots and steam vents. They also said something should be done about increasing visitation, which is `overtaxing' the park's weakening road system and infrastructure. They expressed concern about the effects of logging, oil and gas drilling and home building on the ecosystem in and around the park."

Despite assurance from World Heritage officials that the panel would not make any decision on Yellowstone's status until a draft EIS was released, the committee advanced its analysis to UNESCO for consideration and Yellowstone was designated a World Heritage in Danger on December 5, 1995 with this announcement:

"Berlin, Germany. This morning the World Heritage Committee placed Yellowstone National Park in the United States, the world's first national park, on the List of the World Heritage in Danger. The Committee did so after extensive evaluation of both ascertained and potential threats to the natural ecosystem of the park. This designation was prompted by a proposed gold, silver and copper mining operation 2-1/2 miles from the Park, which specialists have stated would endanger three major watersheds of the Yellowstone River, imperils water quality in Yellowstone National Park, destroys important wildlife habitat, and degrades natural beauty and wilderness. Three days of public hearings in the Park also elicited other threats, including the increasing encroachment on important ecosystem lands which surround Yellowstone by timber harvest, oil and gas development, road building, mining, and home construction; and ever-increasing levels of visitation, jeopardizing the park's natural resources and diminishing the quality of visitor experience."

One month after UNESCO's visit to determine if Yellowstone should be listed as a World Heritage Site in Danger, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund announced its "Save Yellowstone Now" campaign to protect Yellowstone National Park and its adjoining 18 million acres.

The Yellowstone campaign closely parallels a similar campaign which Wildlands Project groups, the U.S. government and the World Wildlife Fund ran in 1994, called "Save British Columbia's Forests." The Canadian campaign successfully listed 19 million acres in the Tatshenshini-Alsek region of British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska as a U.N. World Heritage site in December, 1994. Using the same World Heritage Committee as visited Yellowstone, environmentalists were also successful in stopping the Windy Craggy copper mine from being developed into what was thought to have been a world class mine. The campaign was also successful in raising millions of dollars in funds for the environmental groups who ran full page fund raising adds in newspapers in New York, Seattle and other metropolitan areas, and in listing the Waterton Lakes National Park and adjoining U.S. Glacier National Park as World Heritage Sites in 1995.

The "Save Yellowstone Now" campaign is multifaceted, and involves media, political, legislative and legal efforts of a number of environmental groups including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund is focusing its four-part legal strategy at "every federal management agency involved in Yellowstone -- the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Lands Management." They claim they will use all environmental laws (ie., NEPA, ESA, Clean Water Act, National Forest Management Act and Clean Water Act) to achieve its goals. Their campaign targets logging, destructive road-building, mining, geothermal drilling, oil and gas drilling and rampant tourism, saying that "more people, in more cars, requiring more facilities, for more months out of the year -- are taxing Yellowstone to its very ecological limits."

The campaign started immediately in October of 1995. Sierra Club, in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, appealed a USFS decision on the Bridger-Teton National Forest to the south of Yellowstone National Park. As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, these environmental groups felt that the USFS's "proposal to close 283 of the Pinedale ranger district's 828 miles of roads did not go far enough."

On February 21, 1996, the Teton Valley Independent in Driggs, Idaho quotes Jim Angell of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund as stating "[a] pair of lawsuits has already proved that excessive road building and excessive timbering threaten the endangered grizzly bear."

But industry was not the only one being attacked in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; tourism was being attacked just as heavily. Immediately following Park Superintendent Finley's arrival in Yellowstone, the National Park Service initiated an internal organizing process to revise Yellowstone's winter use plan. Under this process air quality was monitored and visitors surveyed. During the 1994 winter season there were 96 complaints out of 146,000 visitors, which to most people would indicate a high level of satisfaction. The park service, however, did not interpret these statistics as satisfaction. Commenting on the park service statistics, Superintendent Finley stated, "Each winter, we receive more comments from visitors that their experience did not meet their expectations."

February 25th, an Albany, New York newspaper said "Mr. Finley has called for public meetings this month to discuss whether to limit snow-mobile access. 'Its not an easy question', he said; 'limiting access inside the park might just push snow-mobiles out into already overcrowded national forests nearby.'"

Again activities appear to be coordinated with those of environmentalists. On February 18, 1996, a Chardon, Ohio newspaper quoted Jasper Carlton, executive director of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, as saying this about a legal challenge he plans to file this spring in Yellowstone, "We will insist on the complete elimination of the private motorized vehicles from the park in the winter."

In what appears to be an effort to save recreation on the north border of Yellowstone park, a bill was introduced into Congress in February which will designate a region of mixed public and private land a National Recreational Area if enacted. As in the case of the Crown Butte mine, appearances again are deceiving. Environmentalists on the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area of Idaho and Oregon have found recreational area designations extremely effective in restricting multiple uses on federal lands and for restricting development and use of private lands within the designated area through zoning.



In 1996, the Park Service and environmentalists appear to be launching a major campaign against development within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In February 1996, the New York Times ran an article on protecting Yellowstone which stated:

"Development outside a park's boundaries can seep in, and what happens inside can be felt beyond the broadest borders. That is why a United Nations conservation committee voted in December to designate Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Site in Danger...' 'Indeed, economic growth in the greater Yellowstone region - an area much larger than the park itself, which is sometimes called the largest nearly intact natural ecosystem in the temperate zone - is 'one of the greatest long-term threats to the ecological integrity of Yellowstone National Park,' said Michael Finley, the park superintendent. The population of some communities is growing at the rate of 4 percent a year, he said, and if nearby counties in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana that surround the park were taken together as a single state, it would be one of the fastest growing in the country."

Will environmentalists and the administration be successful in implementing all of the components of conservation biology in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem? All the current indicators say they have a high probability of success. At present, the bigger question is how many years will it take them to fully implement their agenda?

Tom McDonnell, former Director of Natrual Resources for the American Sheep Industry, is a member of the Board of Directors of Sovereignty International, and consultant to several state governments, and private industries.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/george ... 208549.php


We Hate To Bring Up the Nazis, But They Fled To South America, Too
Our paranoid friends over at Bring It On have put together a story that hasn’t exactly made Washington Whispers. It’s real short and real simple:

The Cuban news service reports that George W. Bush has purchased 98,840 acres in Paraguay, near the Bolivian/Brazilian border.
Jenna Bush paid a secret diplomatic visit to Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and U.S. Ambassador James Cason. There were no press conferences, no public sightings and no official confirmation of her 10-day trip which apparently ended this week.
The Paraguayan Senate voted last summer to “grant U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.â€