WARNING! Danger Will Robinson! (TWP - Part 2)

[Eagle]

Here's the conclusion of the article:

Transactions monitored by her group included markups of 22 percent to 155 percent in sales of trust lands to government, with profits of as
much as $5 million. Critics say acquisitions of easements or
properties in their entireties promise to become a more common
practice with passage last year of a modified version of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). It created a huge federal
slush fund for park purchases and maintenance. With bipartisan
support in Congress and the backing of major environmental groups, a
full-fledged, fully funded CARA stands a good chance of getting
through this year.

Foreman has his own spin on property rights, which he is trying to
abrogate, attacking "so-called conservatives today who prattle on
about property rights without any sense of responsibility. With
rights come responsibilities and accountability." His is an umbrella
organization for more than 30 regional environmental groups that have
adopted his terms, polemics and goals as their own.

Because its headquarters is in Tucson, Ariz., many who are aware of
the Wildlands effort mistakenly believe it is limited to the West.
Instead, there are active groups and plans from Maine to Florida.

Allied covert operations with similar agendas shy away from direct
identification and talk in more vague and general terms of wilderness
preservation, forest-land protections or stewardship programs. "There
is a significant amount of synergy among various environmental groups
and the Wildlands Project," according to monitor Bennett. "Different,
and often independent, groups work on their own projects and in an
indirect way make TWP more likely."

Bennett, whose group maintains a Website at www.wildlandsproject.org,
calls TWP a "rethinking of science, politics, land use,
industrialization and civilization. It requires a new philosophical
and spiritual foundation for Western civilization." Bennett calls it
nature worship "on a mission from God or Gaia," the term used by New
Age eco-spiritualists for the living Earth or pagan Universal Mother
of the ancients.

Not surprisingly, Bennett's Website is, in turn, under attack by TWP.
A note at its site, www.twp.org, accuses Bennett of using "scare
tactics in an attempt to create unwarranted public fear about TWP's
proposals" through display of "altered maps, quotes taken out of
context and false information." Foreman's group says it is "exploring
legal options as a remedy for the confusion and fear being spread" by
Citizens With Common Sense.

Lucky for Bennett and his group that Foreman has mellowed since his
arrest on charges of plotting to sabotage several nuclear facilities
in the West by downing power lines serving the plants. He pleaded
guilty to federal conspiracy charges and received a suspended
sentence. Involved since 1971 in radical efforts to reduce population
and restructure the approach of Western civilization to technology,
ideology and economics, Foreman was for many years the chief
Washington lobbyist for the Wilderness Society.

After six years with Earth First, he says, he became disenchanted
with its "hippie, countercultural" image. The real nature of the
split seems to have been between left-wing activists who include
"social justice" in their ecological agenda and those such as Foreman
who just want to "re-wild" the planet. Not only is the Foreman
contingent little concerned about humanity's woes, but its attitude
is the less humans the better. Foreman says he sees "eating,
manufacturing, traveling, warring and breeding" by humans as causes
of "the greatest crisis in 4 billion years of life on Earth."

Today, Foreman calls those who practice the eco-terror tactics he
once espoused "idiots." He says he's "never been a liberal or a
leftist, which makes a lot of my friends in the conservation movement
unhappy." He describes himself as a registered Republican and
"redneck," a great-great-grandson of New Mexico homesteaders. His
opposition to immigration - an outgrowth of his desire to limit
population growth - also is a cause of friction with those on the
left.

But this man is a member of the board of directors of the Sierra
Club, the most influential left-wing environmental group in the
country. It was Foreman who led it to endorse replacing the 50 states
with 21 "bio-regions." But the actual "how-to" for that particular
scheme is presented as the work of TWP cofounder Reed Noss, a
conservation biologist.

The plan is complex, requiring a hefty 50-page document to present,
but it stems from belief that the current "parks" system to protect
nature for scenic and recreational purposes doesn't work. Because the
parks are "islands" remote from each other and are used by humans,
many types of wildlife are doomed to extinction, Noss explains. What
is needed is "connectivity." To have the connectivity vital to
migrating species, particularly large carnivores, many other types of
land "from the highest to the lowest elevations, the driest to the
wettest sites, and across all types of soils, substrates and
topoclimates" will have to be linked to the parks.

The way to do this is through creation of bio-regions or eco-regions
for planning purposes. The regions also have psychological value in
selling the idea to locals because they "often inspire feelings of
belonging and protectiveness in their more enlightened human
inhabitants." Each of the regions would have large reserve areas
restored to a primitive state, providing "connectivity" to other
regions for the benefit of migrating wildlife.

The fact that many of these regions now lack huge swaths of primitive
land suitable for wildlife migration gets to re-wilding - the core
mission of the project. Noss advises activists to get busy now
mapping local areas, with cornfields and parking lots of less
interest than "roaded landscapes that are relatively undeveloped and
restorable, especially when adjacent to or near roadless areas." It's
that kind of thinking that makes rural-property holders more than a
little nervous.

Having identified where corridors will exist in their areas,
activists following Noss' plan identify obstacles ahead. These
include private property to be acquired, "land and mineral-rights
acquisitions, road closures, road modifications, cancellations of
grazing leases and timber sales, tree planting, dam removals, stream
dechannelization and other restoration projects."

One question that comes to mind is how these grizzlies, panthers and
wolves will know to stay within their reserves and corridors. But
that's really no big problem, TWP statements assure us: "People can
coexist with wolves, bears and other wildlife, just as they have for
thousands of years in many parts of the world, including North
America. In most cases, humans can easily learn to safely coexist
with wildlife by making minimal lifestyle changes."

David Brill
Land Use Chair. East Coast 4WD Assn.
Land Use Chair. Region D/Northeast, EC4WDA
V.Pres, Land Use; Eastern 4 Wheelers
Blue Ribbon Coalition, Tread Lightly!, NAMRC

 

[Eagle]

Believe it or not, there's even a version (or branch, who knows) of this in Chile. Naturally, it's backed by American money and fed by American zealotry.

 

[8Mud]

Just to make a statement, I know to be true, but sounds a bit self serving. An Ecology is what it is, will probably never be what is was and the most well meaning and logical planning to change it, rarley achieves the desired results.
I heard that President Bush, wants to initiate a program, to remove volunteer/non-native plants from the Everglads, to return it to the way God intended.
I work as a game manager, mostly a number cruncher, just to keep track of game levels in a single valley. I´m one of the guys that, applies policy and tries to deal with the aftermath, of well intentioned (wishful thinking), but often poorly thought out policies. A few years ago they stopped, supplimental winter feeding of game animals, to strenghten the stock, parasitic infestations are now at an all time high, seems herbavoirs that are weakened by the hardships of winter, are suseptable. Maybe the process will eventually strengthen the stock or maybe strengthen the parasites, who knows.
Learned a long time ago, trying to communicate to a PHD. why, the policy he or she has developed and sold to legislators (policy makers), isn´t working and the enevitable chain reaction he/she sets in motion, is a waste of time and is probably more damageing than leaving it the way it is. New policies are often/mostly detrimental to most of the established wildlife (they´ve been adapting, for possibly, hundreds of years/generations and suddenly you change the rules). Jogging and mountain biking, have had adverse affects on many kinds of established wildlife, they aren´t used to it, leave there young and flee in panic (walking by or driving by, rarley upsets them). Wild islands, in agricultural areas, have generally had a benefitial affect for large herbavoirs, but the Fox, Jay, and Crow population has exploded, the Rabbit, Pheasant and Duck population declined.
PHD.´s along with theory, learn communication skills, good communicators often develope a following. The nature of field work is, it´s time intensive. The time the policy makers spend develpeing there talents and marshalling there support, is the time a field worker spends observing. Another talent PHD.´s learn is debate, argueing and focus, never let the facts mess with a good saleable theory.
By "rewilding" an area, probably what they will succed in doing, is establishing another ecology, than what already exists. It may help some animals, probably to the detriment of others. There plans, are most certainly skewed to a type of animal (or plant), which in itself, is contrary to many of the stated goals. An ecology is what it is, at this moment, not what you want it to be, it will probably never be what you invision.
I´ve seen so many wrong thinkers and do gooders screw it up, over the years, I sometimes want to scream.
A few examples in a blink. Closing a jeep trail or dirt road, the verge of a Jeep trail is an ecology, the weed seeds and grass seeds on the verge, spread by passing autos, supports a whole eco structure. From mice to deer and the predators. If that road has been there for more than a few generations (from 3 months to around 3 years) the wildlife has adapted, closing the road, means they have to readapt or perish. The trail is usually overgrown with inedable brush (perennials) in a few years if not used, if it was edible, it wouldn´t be there in the first place. Grasses are fast/early growing annuals and choke out most perenials (along with a little help from the occasional Jeep tire).
My favorite, they closed down the local mud races, because the runoff from the wash up area, was flowing into a small marsh. There was a frog, that somebody decided was threatened by the run off. Well to make a long story short, during the mating and growth period for the frog, the only thing keeping the marsh wet, was the few thousand gallons of water from the wash area (twice a month, in the summer, for ten years). Stopped the races, marsh dreid up in the summer, no frogs.
The old east German border area was a no fire zone (no hunting or shooting within 3 miles). In effect a large stripe down the center of the country, overgrown, forested and overrun with wildlife. Mother nature is untidy at best, in cycles the deer population would explode, deplete the forage and eat the bark off of the trees (mostly conifers). Whole forests would die and dry up. Dead carcasses laying all over the place (trees and animals), then an explosion of carrion eaters and Lupins (fox, wolf) and insects. What used to be the forest, would have a secondary growth of grasses, the deer would repopulate, along with the pigs, the Lupins would thrive (overthrive) for awhile, until the deer were depleted,then move into the valleys (villages, livestock, trashcans). The forest would slowly turn to brush, which is poor forage, for most animals and often burnt, turning large areas to near desert. Eventually the grass would return and if the weather co-operated, some trees would grow, usually Birch (in place of what used to be conifers). By re-wilding an area, the good intentioned, will probably start a hundreds year long cycle into motion, that could end much worse, than what is already established. Just because it´s natural doesn´t mean it´s good or desireable.
Darwins studies of the Galapagos islands, taught us much about evolution. It also taught us about adaptabilty through evolution.
Re-wilding an area, is as ecologically irrsponsible as, building a shopping center on the same property. Though Starlings and Pidgeons, do seem to like shopping centers.
Wouldn´t it be a hoot, if in a hundred years, the Pidgeon became an endangered species, due to loss of habitat.

 

[Holy_Hand_Grenade]

Hehe, but I love the fact that when these do-gooders actually implement something and it turns out the opposite of what they thought, they simply align themselves to the thought that "Man this was really worse off than we thought, this should've been done years ago".

I guess it just goes to show you that you cant confuse people with logic or facts.