Wildlife corridors: Where do they really lead?

Since wildlife corridors aren’t proven to work as intended, and may even harm wildlife, what is the true purpose? Wildlife corridor theory and reserves, are a part of the “Wildlands Project of America” (also global initiatives). In making a long story short, the United Nations sponsors many groups and actions to implement their Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) was formed in 1946 as the primary scientific advisor to the United Nations on environmental issues. Many governmental and non-governmental groups help to carry out these objectives. This includes The EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forestry Service, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation and the National Audubon Society, to name a few. Most individuals who belong to these groups are well-meaning individuals who have no idea of the underlying implications; of the control of most all water and land in the world that is sought by the United Nations and the world’s global elite.

The Treaty on Conservation of Biodiversity from the United Nations, was presented to our Senate in 1993 for ratification. It was turned down at the last hour, by the interventions of Dr. Michael Coffman (Ph.D. Forestry and Ecology) through his Republican state senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Dr. Coffman constructed an extensive map which put into visual form, all the restrictions that would have forbidden people the use of over fifty percent of the land and waterways of America. After seeing the map, our Senate refused to hear it, but our local planning departments and local governments, without insight and knowledge, for decades, have continued to implement it. Groups like Earth First, founded by David Foreman, used the map to found the “Wildland Institute” and more recently, the “Rewilding of America.” It is the plan for reserves and wildlife corridors across our country. It is the plan to restrict human habitation from land, and turn it over to free-ranged predators and wildlife. David Foreman, has in the past belonged to a local Nature Conservancy group and has served as a board member for The Sierra Club on the national level. He is a folk hero-guru to most environmentalists. This quote among many others, should give you a clear view of the type of world he envisions:

“My three main goals would be to reduce population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Some of his numbers are more lenient, allowing as many as five hundred million humans to survive out of about seven billion. (One wonders if he will line-up to volunteer for eradication first?) His goals correlate with Maurice Strong, who for decades before his recent death, pushed for U.N. global control through use of the environment. While Foreman doesn’t look to benefit personally, being a pure environmentalist, Maurice Strong was a businessman. He really didn’t care about the environment personally, as shown by his lavish lifestyle, but lusted after global control. These two groups, the purists and the elites use each other very effectively.

The United Nations backs population control, universities teach it, as well as wealthy elites from around the world. Bill Gates has some ideas about how to reduce population. In a recent interview, he said:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

If that’s not enough, Biology Professor Eric R. Pianka at the University of Texas states:

“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”

Most environmentalist groups support this line of thinking. In the limited scope of this paper, we will look at some Sierra Club quotes. From David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club:

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

From the National Magazine of the Sierra Club, June 4, 2014, by Kenneth Brower, David’s son:

“Wilderness is not dispensable. It’s what reminds us of who we are. Once the entire world, it is that shrinking sliver where life operates as Creation--or the life force--or God, or Nature--”
Just recently, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, interviewed Michael Brune, executive director for Sierra Club. Brune argued for the importance of reproductive rights as a means of controlling the population in order to protect the environment. He suggested that when open abortion is legalized, then it will help keep the population from expanding out of control. The Sierra Club is pro-choice. Brune asserted that abortion is a critical tool for protecting the environment from the threat of overpopulation.

Now we begin to see the pattern of thought that gives rise to wildlife reserves and corridors. From the top levels of organizations, it is about controlling the land, water, resources and human beings of the world. That has always been the mantra of the United Nations since its inception. It’s the dream and obsession of many wealthy elites. It’s about populating with animals and eradicating humans. It’s about controlling all the global resources for a select elite group of humans at the expense of the rest of us.

In “Regional Governance” by Dr. Eric Karlstrom, he notes that “The regional governance plan is that North America (Region1) is to merge into the North American Union. The Sierra Club, in cooperation with the IUCN and the United Nations, has already re-mapped North America into 21 ‘bio-regions’. …each bio-region is divided into three zones: 1) Wilderness area where human intrusion is forbidden, 2) buffer zones surrounding the wilderness area with strictly controlled and limited human access, and 3) cooperation zones, where humans would be permitted to live, although their activities could be sharply circumscribed.”

How did Florida get into this? We were chosen as the poster child. “In 1994, The Wildlands Project identified the southeastern United States as a pilot region of vital ecological significance.” “After the regional organizational meeting, …Conway Conservation took the lead in managing SEWP’s (Southeast Wildlands Project) activities, primarily through the efforts of Linda Duever and Tom Hoctor.” Tom Hoctor, of the University of Florida wrote the Florida Greenways Plan and designed the corridors that gave birth to the Ecological Linkages Map quoted in the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This is the proof that he is implementing the Wildlands Project started by David Foreman and envisioned by the United Nations. A copy of this article can be seen at http://citizenreviewonline.org/april_2002/wildlands_project_history.htm

along with a list of supporting organizations including The Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club. We now can see that this whole project is a double-edged sword; reduce population of humans drastically, vacate the land, and repopulate it with wildlife. Who is to benefit? Not the average human being, that’s for certain!

How then can we support this false conservationism? This is why the entire concept of Ecological Linkages and Wildlife Corridors is dangerous. In the end, It’s about controlling humanity. It’s about people in power playing GOD. We don’t have to do this. We should not be doing the bidding of people who believe that abortion is the way to control population and the extreme environmentalists who give animals property rights at the expense of human rights.

Therefore, what we have is a questionable, even harmful technique for wildlife, that also threatens private property rights and human natural rights, in the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Nearly six million acres of land in Florida are already restricted to human activity, while the rest of our human inhabited land is freely shared with wildlife. The wholesale buying of property, putting unnecessary restrictions and designations of corridors on the map, is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Funds could be better spent improving the habitat in wildlife refuges, bringing in new animals to add to the gene pool and improving opportunities for people to visit and recreate safely and freely in wildlife areas. We believe the solution lies in voluntary education; government by consent, not by force. Help people learn to better coexist with wildlife, because that will happen no matter what labels are placed on a map. Wildlife can’t read and will use private property anyway.

Of particular concern also, is Ms. McNeese’s (of the planning department), statement from the “kick-off”, that while she asked for the community’s participation, she admitted that “new admissions to the draft are not anticipated.” (Hernando Sun, August 5, 2016).

We do not want the “Ecological Linkages” theory in our Comprehensive Plan.

We would appreciate wording more like the following which is based on actual entries from other counties:

The County should work with local environmental groups to develop and maintain voluntary programs, encouraging private land owners to use best available management practices to protect the habitat of endangered and threatened species. The County should make programs and literature available to all citizens.

This should be all that is needed between citizens and their government to maintain mutual respect for private property rights and human rights. Wildlife will benefit from management practices specifically tailored to each property, by owners who honestly care about the wildlife that co-exists with them.

We leave the final word to God. In Genesis, God gave dominion “over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis, Chapter I Verse 28) Through the ages, animals have meant milk and meat, clothing and shelter. They have shared man’s burden of work and have even provided companionship. We must not lose sight of all they mean to us or the proper relationship between man and wildlife. After the flood, God told humanity to go forth, be fruitful and multiply (Genesis Chapter 35, Verse 11). There is no mention in the Bible of limiting human life through birth control and abortion. There is no mention of man being subservient to wildlife or of giving up property rights for animal rights. In verse 12, God tells Noah, “And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and thy seed after thee will I give the land.”


Disqus Comments