Wildlife Management and Agenda 21 (Work In Progress…)

nugent

“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view”
– Aldo Leopold

Over the last few years, through numerous hours of reading various books, blogs, historical documents and articles relating to modern conservation, agriculture and sports hunting, I have come to the realization that the way of life we have grown up with in the rural areas of the Pacific Northwest may eventually be doomed. This includes our access to hunting and fishing as the technocratic agenda rolls out. Even though there seems to be a genuine effort to ensure that all the citizens in Idaho and other western states continue to have access to their rights to hunt and fish and utilize their local resources, I suggest that our common ignorance of many of the political and social processes that drive individual and institutional decisions will play out in unintended ways; ways that will be detrimental to our individual access to public lands and to our local sovereignty. I would argue, in large part, this is at the behest of our own well intended but misguided assumptions about humans and their interactions with nature and also in part due to the unrelenting hubris of our resource management policy makers; many of whom, I suggest, are willingly participating in this deception. In this series of blogs I will present my concerns for some of the policies and agendas in the area of wildlife management as this seems to be one of the lesser researched agendas. It is my intention to demonstrate and explain some of the ways in which the policies governing these activities are being manipulated.

Our Misguided Conservation Strategy

Much conversation has been made within the natural resource community to suggest that trophy-hunting, sport-fishing and other outdoor sports are the leading mechanisms that allows for the conservation and perpetuation of our fish and wildlife. The resurrection of the early 20th century conservation icons; like Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot (NFF Interview), John Muir and other such environmentalists, are leading the way to promote an ideology that puts the sportsman-conservationist as the primary mechanism to conserve and perpetuate our wildlife resources. At various events and through social media, the institutions of public trust are preaching the gospel of the North American Wildlife Management model and Public Trust doctrines, usually through various presenters, such as Shane Mahoney (1) WILDLIFE SUMMIT) who seems to embody these conservation ideals. Guided by these modern promoters of ‘the method’ it seems the environmental and resource management community are readily adopting these ideals and applying them to the natural resource use and conservation practices of today.
Given a thorough review of history and looking closer at the modern initiatives currently on the world stage, I would suggest that the ideologies being presented by these individuals and institutions are misguided. While I would not contend that those who participate in sport or trophy hunting and fishing activities are ill-intended or knowingly supporting the opposition to the free access of the land they love and respect, I make the argument that many of the institutions that they support (or are a part of), are working to do just that. Much like what I would argue as being the “bait and switch” of Teddy Roosevelt’s time (2) CONSERVATION REFUGEES) (3) CONSERVATION EUGENICS), I suggest that we are in a similar state of affairs now. (The ‘bait and switch’ I am referring to that brought about a massive land grab in the 11th hour of the congressional session by the Federal government in 1905 (1905 TRANSFER ACT) and the subsequent infusion of public funds, was the exploitation by Roosevelt and his colleagues of the Hegelian bantering (HEGELIAN DIALECTIC) between the ‘Conservationists’ and ‘Industrialists’ of the time). This time the process is being employed under an international mechanism, specifically United Nations Agenda 21. I would suggest, despite the perceived benefits of the transfer of land into the US National Forests system for the ‘public good’ that the long term implications of such a deal has been detrimental to the health of the forests and the people. To support this argument I would like to analyze the key players and rhetoric surrounding the following situations.

Part 1: Cecil the Lion and Agenda 21
Part 2: Conservation in other African Nations
Part 3: The Viljoen Hunting Preserve and the Importation of Socialist Ideals
Part 4: The National Forest Foundation and other NGO’s

 

Part 1: Cecil the Lion and Agenda 21

Because this is the most recent issue of contention that has brought conservation issues into the spotlight, I would like to address this first. To make it most relevant to the western states, I would like to analyze this through the usual suspect, who I’ve spoken about in previous blog posts, Rocky Barker in his “Letters from the West”. (4)
As demonstrated in my previous blog posts, Barker, as a “government embedded” reporter, seems to be the voice for the federal and state agencies with regard to conservation policy. In this capacity he provides the platform to convey the perspectives of the natural resource management community. He seems to speak for the Idaho Fish and Game, the Wildlife Commission, the governor’s wildlife working groups and other such entities along with all the various interagency collaborator organizations and contractors. In this capacity he has the ability to convey to the public and within the ranks of the resource organizations and their public and private collaborators, the desires of the respective “upper echelons” within each group. What he conveys, if accepted and promoted by an organization, has the power to become the unified voice of each respective institution and those who hold each institution in high regard. If the ideologies Barker conveys are misleading, coercive or ambiguous and then advanced without being checked or corroborated by institutions of public trust, the results have the potential to be detrimental to the citizens’ relationship to the resource. I suggest this is the case with regard to Barker’s promotion of the programs and leading perceptions about African wildlife management and the issues of concern around Cecil the lion.
In his article “Hunter’s stupid act in Africa masks benefits of trophies” Rock Barker weighs in on the Cecil the lion debate. (4) As is evident in the title of the article, Barker provides the prospective that, despite this instance of misconduct, trophy hunting is a beneficial tool for generating funds for conservation efforts and to manage wildlife populations. While I recognize the value of conservation and understand the need to acquire monetary and other resources to build that capacity, under our current paradigm, I strongly argue against this notion. I further contend that the ideology conveyed in this article and the actions of the resource management organizations in support of this ideology are the result of deep seeded patriarchal influences that disrespect the relationship of the local communities to their environment; making them subservient to an international and economic mechanism of control. (2) Nowhere is this more apparent than in the nations of Africa under the programs Barker promotes in his article.

What’s Going on in the Background?

Most of the time and much to our collective detriment, few in the public or in the public trust agencies take the time to research any of the background of what they read or hear in the news. Few have the slightest understanding of what has taken place in Africa or understand the situations that have led to their not-so unique paradigm. Few will take the time to connect the dots and recognize the key players and their ideologies which have manifested in the conservation efforts of Africa. Few will apply discerning logic to the subtle implications for our local communities that might be realized in this shared philosophy that promotes the “trophy-hunter/ conservationist” theory; nor will they understand the institutional and global mechanisms that are driving these and other similar conservation efforts at home. A growing number of citizens, thanks to a concerted effort by a few researchers, are beginning to understand the processes being implemented under the UN Agenda 21 plan (5) AGENDA 21. Even so, I have yet to see much recognition on how this ties in to the sports hunting community. This article by Rocky Barker, when put under the microscope, gives us a great opportunity to provide a glimpse into the sport and trophy hunting process as a tool for the displacement and subjugation of indigenous people.

Analysis CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe:

What I find most interesting in this article is the section where Barker reminisces about his time in Africa while on assignment for the Idaho Statesman. His assignment was to examine conservation efforts under the CAMPFIRE program. (CAMPFIRE WEBSITE).

  • “The Idaho Statesman sent me to Zimbabwe in 1998 to examine the parallels with conservation programs in Idaho, especially village-based conservation.
    There I met Graham and Brian Child, whose remarkable conservation efforts are central to the survival of large animals such as lions and elephants in Zimbabwe. Graham, director of national parks and wildlife management there both before and after the 1980 revolution, came up with the idea of the Campfire program, which allowed villages to sell tags to kill wildlife as part of an overall management plan and then spend the proceeds to benefit their community.”

Though seemingly benign on the surface, the CAMFIRE program being promoted by Barker, should be great cause for concern; particularly if it is to be held as a standard for Idaho to aspire to. What Barker presents here is a very simplistic and abbreviated look at the conservation efforts going on in Zimbabwe. What you are not getting in this article is the necessary exposure to the relevant history behind the situation; including the international mechanisms behind this and other similar programs in other African countries, nor are you getting a look at the biographies of the people implementing these programs. These are very essential pieces of information to consider as I will demonstrate.

I would suggest that if Idaho adopts a similar management program, like Zimbabwe, access to the land and resources will be seriously impacted. Rather than being “central to the survival of large animals” I suggest that programs like this are central to furthering the plan for international corporate control over the resources and extirpation of the local indigenous populations.While not necessarily specific to trophy hunting, this situation has been laid out quite well by Mark Dowie in his book “Conservation Refugees” (2)CONSERVATION REGUGEES). In this book we see that what has been transpiring in Africa started here in America. These nations have used the same overt and coercive mechanisms as the Teddy Roosevelt administration to subjugate their indigenous people; similar in process and scope to what was used against the American Indians.

  •  “The rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him. It is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of the red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners and become the heritage of the dominant world races.” – Theodore Roosevelt
What appears to have been happening in the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE program is a continuation of the same methods of extortion by national and international governments and Big International NGO’s (BINGOS), similar to what is described by Mark Dowie in his book (2). Is this what is now being sold back to us as a management model? (Recognize that this is a model that will encourage the displacement of our modern indigenous populations (increase the transition of the rural populations to the cities) by promoting a communitarian ideal that strengthens the ties of the wildlife resource to the financial valuation process while elevating the modern ego-driven trophy hunter as the solution to deal with ‘overpopulation’ and human-wildlife conflicts. Consider my blog, “Transcending the Cult of Personality” (LINK) and think about how this might be applied to the conservation process with regard to our celebrated trophy hunters and sportsman).
This is an overview from the CAMPFIRE website that describes how revenue is generated: (CAMPFIRE)
  • “The general CAMPFIRE model is that the RDCs, or community trust, lease out business opportunities based on natural resources, to private sector partners. Most of the revenue earned is from wildlife-based activities. Of the wildlife-based activities, over 90% of the revenue is from trophy or sport hunting leases with commercial safari operators. The balance of the revenue is from leases for other forms of tourism, the sale of hides, ivory and other animal products. Since the year 2001 CAMPFIRE has actively sought to diversify the programme to include revenue from other sources.
    How much revenue has been earned so far? Between 1989 and 2001 (inclusive) the income earned by RDCs with Appropriate Authority has been Z$454 million or US$20 million. The highest income achieved was in 1999 when districts received additional revenue from CITES approved ivory sales.”

To those with little or no background of the events in history and resource exploitations that have led to this seemingly perilous situation in Africa for wildlife and people, (MAGNIFICENT AFRICAN CAKE) (CONSERVATION REFUGEES) what Barker suggests about the CAMPFIRE program being “central to the survival of large animals” can be taken as fact. For those who are ignorant of the history of the “Childs” (CHILDS) and their international affiliations, there is no reason to suspect ulterior motives. Because public trust organizations and their constituency here in Idaho and the rest of the nation don’t perform their due diligence in looking into the background of whom and what they promote, this grandiose statement can persist without adversely affecting the positive public perceptions that natural resource organizations enjoy. I would encourage all within and outside the public trust organizations to go deeper so that we might operate from awareness rather than ambiguity. I would encourage all who are served by the state and federal organizations to ask questions and force a response to some of the concerns you might turn up through such an open-source investigation.

Reduced to Possession

Apparently Rocky Barker and other established conservation leaders, as evidence in their support of the trophy hunting and international marketing of local resources through these internationally sponsored resource development programs in Africa, think the people of Idaho and the rest of the Western states should be “managed” like the people of Africa. As one representative from the modern indigenous population of Idaho, I would rather not see Idaho go by the way of Zimbabwe and fall further victim to the social programming mechanisms that have made their populations dependent on international trade in trophy hunting and trapping, international trade in wildlife commodities or other cleverly disguised international “conservation” investments (DAILY HERB). These are all strategies and investments that the indigenous people of Africa have been forced to depend on for their existence. I, for one, don’t want to be forced by my government to count on the charity of narcissists, like Ted Nugent (Picture 1) or institutional narcissism, in the form of Wildlife Services, to protect my family from “the big bad wolf” and feed me through their generous contributions of this meat to the food bank. I would rather not lose the relationship I have with my resources to this ambiguous, economically inspired model of management that is being promoted by Rocky Barker and the institutions of public trust.

nugent.png

Figure 1- Ted Nugent African Hunting trip:

  • “Here is a beautiful photo of me & my band with Cecil’s great great grandpa, Fernando the lion. No, they are not holding him down while I perform unnatural acts upon the helpless creature. After all, everybody knows lions are helpless & cute. Just fyi, this pure natural legal proper scientificaly sound necessary hunt like all hunts was pure SPORT TROPHY MEAT FUN. Every sacred preciouos part of this animal was utilized. We hired 40 people on the safari, shared the meat, claws, skull, sinew, body fluids, teeth, blood, organs, skin, hair, tongue, eyeballs & each & every hard earned resource this magnificent RENEWABLE resource provided while bringing in critical massive revenues to the local economy while making room for new lions to be born & bringing value to valuable creatures. I dare idiots everywhere to point out what was wrong about this & all hunts. Fools are as fools be. Lion baby, the other whitemeat!”…. (I’m sorry, but this guy is an ignorant, egotistical, soulless asshole of the highest order… and I can demonstrate on many levels the critically flawed logic in what he states here.)

Given the extent the Idaho Legislature has moved to pass bills that would potentially lead to similar situations that allow for more “pay for hunting/ conservation” preserves in Idaho public lands, (most recently being entertained by the endowment lands board (LINK) it’s not difficult to draw some inferences about the direction this is headed. The efforts of conservation writers like Rocky Barker, through his ambiguous presentation and promotion of the CAMPFIRE program for Idaho (along with his promotion of every other form of government dependency) is further validation of such an agenda. Even though there seems to be some resistance to this agenda within the Idaho Fish & Game Commission and the IDFG department, can we really say that the Idaho Fish & Game is in opposition when it funds presentations and provides a promotional platform for modern multi-generational colonial eco-capitalists, like Joe Viljoen and ….. ? (I would argue that public trust institutions are unknowingly in most instances, actively using their positions to manufacture perceptions about these arguably disingenuous African big game hunting preserves; preserves that are effectively severing the ties the indigenous people once had with their natural resources in a contemporary form of cultural genocide in many cases (LINK).

Campfire and UN Agenda 21

Unlike in the United States at this time (and, perhaps, in Africa as well by now) with the exposure of United Nation’s Agenda 21forcing the federal government to hide their connections, in South Africa in 2001 there apparently wasn’t a similar concern. (I say this recognizing that there is no mainstream conversation about the well documented connections of various local initiatives to Agenda 21). This report submitted by the South African Development Community (SADC) to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (SADC PROGRESS REPORT) lists CAMPFIRE in its’ list of affiliated organizations and states that “The Campfire program of Zimbabwe was implemented and largely funded through NGO support – Zimbabwe Trust, WWF, Africa Resources Trust (LAND TRUSTS) and Campfire Association.
To get the full grasp of the implications of this would require some time spent analyzing this document and reading between the lines. It would also require taking the time to learn more about UN Agenda 21 and how this top down international agenda is being made to manifest in local governments through well-funded collaborations all over the world. (AGENDA 21 PRESENTATIONS) It would also be helpful to do some background research into the backing of these international NGO’s (referred to as Big International Non-Government Organizations (BINGO’s) by the affected indigenous populations around the world). I would highly recommend reading the Norman Dodd report to the Reece Committee investigation into tax-exempt foundations in 1954 if you wish to understand the level of coercion being foisted upon the American people. (NORMAN DODD REPORT).
I encourage the reader, especially those who are responsible for maintaining the public’s trust, to look deeper into Agenda 21 and learn more about “communitarianism” and how manufactured or useful stories, like the Cecil lion issue, are being used to coerce people into giving up their personal sovereignty under the dialectic perception management that draws people into one of two controlled “sides”. In many cases, with regard to resource management, it becomes a debate between “saving the planet or saving the economy”; a debate which typically leads to the development of a blended version of the two opposing views. It is a process that seeks to maintain the peace by appeasing the rigid views set by the mainstream media talking heads (“managing human nature” and “population control” on one side and providing for a “growing economy” and “feeding a growing population” (GMO’s, pesticides, Industrial Agriculture, resource development, etc…) on the other); which, more often than not, reflects a misunderstood perception of the situation on both accounts. This is why we continue to see the economic value of resource decisions being promoted by resource agencies, even though natural systems have no concern for how “many jobs are being created” or how “great for the economy” the outdoor sporting industry is.
This is beyond the scope of this essay, but from a natural law perspective this manufactured, dialectic paradigm, ultimately driven by money, ends up being a drain on both the monetary and natural systems; systems which are held mutually exclusive as understood by resource managers and economists, but very much energetically connected in the sense that energy is being exchanged between the two and siphoned off through the very misunderstood and highly controlled system of banking, fiat currency and usury debt. Ultimately, both systems become subservient to a banking and usury system that is highly controlled by very powerful individuals that understand the deeper connections between the natural and monetary systems and how to apply energy and resources from one or the other to exert more control over both. (CORBETT REPORT ON MONEY)
Child’s Biographies: (CHILD’S BIOGRAPHIES)
A diligent researcher could spend many hours looking at the conservation efforts in Africa, the history of Cecil Rhodes, Cecil the lion and many other relevant situations and barely scratch the surface of the levels of deception and the broad implications for the people of Zimbabwe and every other nation. The same can be said for the history of the Americas. Even though we’ve all had history classes; some, like Shane Mahoney, extensively so; we know little to nothing about some very important developments in history, like the Native American Holocaust or the American Eugenics movement. These are very important dark moments in history that are important to be aware of. Despite this fact, the realization that so many at every level of authority are completely ignorant to the mechanisms of genocide and the power structures that allowed them to manifest in our own country; as well as in Africa, it seems extremely ill-advised to move forward without getting some sense of what took place and reconciling it with to the conflicting actions and intensions inherent in our mission, goals and objectives. Not reconciling these things leaves us all more susceptible to the mechanisms of coercion by the “powers that be”.

2007 Program Findings- In another report from 2007 by Judith Marishinya about the CAMPFIRE program, a much less impressive review is presented. (CAMPFIRE PROGRAM FINDINGS) In this progress report she has this to say:

  • “Key findings from the case studies include: (1) the extent and quality of community participation has declined sharply in both sites; (2) capture of benefits by local elites has contributed significantly to these declines; (3) lack of full devolution to the communities, which is frequently cited as a critical weakness in CAMPFIRE, played a relatively minor role in shaping outcomes; (4) the loss of NGO support that followed the end of donor funding had severe negative effects on outcomes; and (5) the national political and economic crisis, while detrimental, had less of an impact than expected.”
    Maginalisation of the Waata Oromo Hunter Gatherers- (KENYA) A similar
    TED Case Study on CAMPFIRE-

(3) CONSERVATION EUGENICS)
o “Conservation and Eugenics” James Wohlforth, Orion Magazine https://orionmagazine.org/article/conservation-and-eugenics/
o “Conserving The Race: Natural Aristocracies, Eugenics, and the U.S. Conservation Movement” Gray Brechin, Ph.D. http://graybrechin.net/articles/1990s/conserving.html

– (2) CONSERVATION REFUGEES)
o “Conservation Refugees” Mark Dowie https://books.google.com/books/about/Conservation_Refugees.html?id=T9OVqyhVyy4C

– (1) WILDLIFE SUMMIT-
o Shane Mahoney Wildlife Summit Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mp7Tpd_oyqY

– (4) Rocky Barker Article –
o “Hunter’s stupid act in Africa masks benefits of trophies” http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/07/30/3917988/rocky-barker-hunters-stupid-act.html#storylink=cpy

– (5) AGENDA 21-

– (6) SADC PROGRESS REPORT) “SADC PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21 AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” 2001 Report on Progress of Agenda 21 in Africa including CAMPFIRE (Under Rhode’s Scholar Brian Childs)
http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/prep_process/africa/sadc_prepcom_progress_report.pdf

– (CAMPFIRE PROGRAM FINDINGS) PARTICIPATION AND DEVOLUTION IN ZIMBABWE’S CAMPFIRE PROGRAM: FINDINGS FROM LOCAL PROJECTS IN MAHENYE AND NYAMINYAMI by Judith Mashinya, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007

– (CHILD’S BIOGRAPHIES) Graham and Brian Childs: http://www.library.ufl.edu/spec/manuscript/guides/child.htm

– (KENYA) “Marginalisation of the Waata Oromo Hunter-Gatherers of Kenya: Insider and Outsider Perspectives” By Kassam, Aneesa; Bashuna, Ali Balla https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-124336799/marginalisation-of-the-waata-oromo-hunter-gatherers

– (TED CASE STUDY) http://www1.american.edu/TED/campfire.htm

– (HEGELIAN DIALECTIC)

– (CHURCH COMMITTEE)

– (MAGNIFICENT AFRICAN CAKE) “The Magnificent African Cake” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQiGDZVDz4&feature=player_embedded

– (CAMPFIRE WEBSITE) CAMPFIRE Website http://campfirezimbabwe.org/

http://www.globaleye.org.uk/archive/summer2k/focuson/mars_pt1.html

– (LAND TRUSTS)Daily Herb

– (CORBETT REPORT ON MONEY)

– (1905 TRANSFER ACT) http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron4.html ;

o “THE FOREST SERVICE IN 1905” Dennis Roth, Ph.D. and Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D. January 8, 2003
o http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/first_century/sec2.htm
o http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/Transfer_Act_1905.pdf

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Wildlife Management and Agenda 21 (Work In Progress…)

  1. Chuck, this is an EXCELLENT article! It’ll take me some time to digest all the primary resources, but even in what you’ve outlined in the body, it was a very enlightening read. Your comments on hunting preserves as disconnecting indigenous peoples from their relationship with their own surroundings is especially profound.

    The historical continuity of Anglo-American models of domination and forced metaphors of “ecological stability” have been indivorcible since at least the days of General Jan Smuts with his promotion of the pseudo-science of “Holism,” essentially the eugenics of ecology.

    On a slightly tangential note, has Idaho recently created any new government institutions related to wildlife management? Say, within the past 5 or 6 years? I ask because in my home state of Michigan, the “Michigan Wildlife Council” which originally came about in 2013 has begun a substantial PR initiative around the State:

    http://michiganwildlifecouncil.org/

    We already have the DNR and the ICLEI-affiliated NGO known as the “Michigan Environmental Council:”

    http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/

    So what’s the point of this new organization? I haven’t found much on the new Council, but at this point it seems to be a separate State “working group” designed explicitly to promote the type of activities laid out in your article.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Public Lands and the Roosevelt Switcharoo – Modern Indigenous Perspectives

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s