NGOs POLITICAL RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC

I came upon a great article by Michael Oppenheimer in Social Research. I was researching non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who advise the Endangered Species Act. I urge everyone who questions the scientific data much of the ESA is based on, to read Mr. Oppenheimer's article. The article does not offer conclusive bias in ESA decisions and policy but it does ask some provocative questions. The article can be viewed at: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5969648/Science-and-environmental-policy-the.html.

I will post a link above in the long and confusing list of other links and titles concerning wolf reintroduction and other issues above the posting section of the blog.

Publication: Social Research
Publication Date: 22-SEP-06
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Oppenheimer, Michael

Cattle, Chickens, Pigs, Turkeys, Sheep, Goats, Bison, Horses, Camels, Llamas, Deer and More To Be Injected With Transponders or ID Tags

The Nation, December 14, 2007

NAIS, which the US Department of Agriculture has been rolling out in concert with many states since 2003, is stunning in its projected scope. Over the next few years each of the nation's 1.4 million farms (plus thousands of veterinary facilities, export/import stations, livestock barns and genetic facilities) will be affected, with all their approximately 95 million cattle, 1.8 billion chickens, 60 million pigs, 93 million turkeys, 6.3 million sheep, 2.5 million goats and every other livestock species, including bison, camelids, cervids, horses and llamas. In all, more than twenty-nine species and more than two billion animals are slated to be fitted with the ID tags or be injected with transponders that transmit, to a national network of databases, information as basic as date of birth and as sophisticated as DNA profiles and chemical-residue measurements in the bloodstream.

The complete article at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/pentland_gumpert

Is another Otero County Ordinance in order, one prohibiting National Animal Identification System (NAIS)? I think so in that other counties in New Mexico have followed suit with the Wolf, Jaguar, Grizzly Bear Ordinance. Let's take the lead again.

NEW STUDY: PREDATORS HUNT BY LINE OF SIGHT

An article about a recent study in Africa tells of ranchers hanging burlap bags over wire fences, to keep lions away. According to the study, if the predator can't see its prey, it simply goes away.
Link to study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000512082235.htm

In the spirit of species conservation, Otero Residents Forum has some suggestions for utilizing this new dynamic in protecting livestock from predators. WE suggest ranchers simply disguise their cattle. In the picture we have cleverly disguised two cows. One as a house and the other as an old pickup truck: (note the dummy in the pickup truck).
















FORUM NOTE: This may not be such a good idea after all. On the second night of disguising our cattle as a house and an old pickup truck; a wolf disguised as a motorboat snuck up to one of the cows and bit it.
Photo link: www.fifa.asn.au

DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE AS TACTIC TARGETING RANCHERS

http://www.familyfarmer.org/awg13.pdf

I came upon an interesting book called: Amber Waves of Gain: Gene Ladd, 2005- Chapter Nine-Aligning With the Extreme Right. The publication goes to extremes to cast New Mexico ranchers and the Minute Men as ‘shadowy groups’ intent on terrorism and violence, intimidation of law enforcement and numerous illegal acts. This is an example of the use of detrimental reliance used by environmentalists to sway public opinion in favor of environmental land grabs and programs like wolf reintroduction. I have no proof but I suspect the incidents of violence and threats were orchestrated by the environmentalists themselves in an effort to portray them as victims of violence perpetrated against them by ranchers and the Minute Men. Read the incredulous accounts of how these environmentalists have been terrorized by shadowy groups of terrorists from the ranches of Catron County.

From Gene Ladd’s book: Amber Waves of Gain:

P. 3
“New Mexico is home to one of the original county-supremacy movements.
Catron County’s government was the first to adopt ordinances aimed at seizing control of federal land.”

P. 3-4
“Yet the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau said it was outraged by the police training manual’s reference to that movement and used its influence with the governor and state lawmakers to put pressure on the state police. The New Mexico farm bureau did not let up until the Department of Public Safety agreed to withdraw the manual and recall all copies. By defending its wise-use friends, the farm bureau may have deprived law-enforcement agencies of important information about potential terrorist activities. According to police, two recent attacks on the offices of environmentalists in Santa Fe, New Mexico, may have been linked to one of the militant organizations described in the training manual. On March 19, 1999, a potentially deadly pipe bomb was discovered in the mailbox of Forest Guardians, a group advocating protection of wildlife and public lands. The bomb failed to go off and later was detonated by a Santa Fe police bomb squad. Police say the ball-bearingfilled pipe bomb was powerful enough to kill or seriously injure anyone nearby. The next day, a drawing was mailed to Forest Guardians showing the name of the organization centered beneath the cross-hairs of a rifle scope. The drawing was signed with the initials M.M., which police believe to stand for the Minute Men. This shadowy group has claimed credit for other attacks, including a 1998 nighttime shotgun blast that shattered windows at the Santa Fe offices of Animal Protection of New Mexico.

Before that attack, Animal Protection received a letter also signed M.M. warning, “You are approaching a point where we will hurt you. We are going to make a concerted effort to kill any wolf reintroduced into the wild and poison bison as long as you interfere with wildlife issues.

Both targeted environmental groups have supported wolf reintroduction. Forest Guardians also has filed a number of successful lawsuits leading to curbs on grazing, logging and water use on public lands and better protection of endangered species. There is no evidence that the Farm Bureau has been involved with any of the militant anti-environmental groups. But some observers believe that the bureau’s extreme rhetoric may encourage attacks. “The Farm Bureau sows the seeds of violence with its hateful rhetoric and antagonistic stance on wildlife issues,” says Forest Guardians president Sam Hitt. “The Farm Bureau has created a bigoted and intolerant atmosphere in which acts of violence thrive.” And nowhere is that attitude more apparent than on the issue of predator reintroduction.”

These groups are using urban terrorist tactics commonly used by anti-war groups like the Weather Underground and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), during the Viet Nam war in the late 60’s and into the 1970’s. Today’s environmental movement includes leftovers from the anti-war movement that have found a home in the environmental movement.

Gene Ladd’s book, Amber Waves of Gain, is described as: The Amber Waves of Gain, How the Government Makes Us Fat and The Spriritual Power to Lose It.
This is a perfect example of detrimental reliance and the propaganda many young people are fed on college campuses and in the environmental movement. Mr. Ladd portrays the residents of Catron County as ‘county-supremacists’, creating their own law and using violence to intimidate the courageous environmentalists and wolf release advocates.
I looked up Mr. Ladd’s book on Amazon. The book is currently unavailable. Mr. Ladd has a radio show on WTBQ-AM; The Only Independent Radio Station Serving All of Orange County and Northern New Jersey. Gene Ladd is nicknamed the ‘Herb Man’ and does his show from the Pleasant Stone Farm in Middletown, New York. Pleasant Stone Farm sells herbs, natural health and beauty products, homeopathic remedies and other herbal remedies and products. Mr. Ladd has a radio show to plug his green business and a book that portrays ranchers in New Mexico as terrorists. Once again we see an Eastern environmental fanatic getting his self-worth, and part of his income at the expense of Americans living in the American West.

The phone number to Pleasant Stone Farm is listed on the greenpeople.org website.
The number is: 888-578-4372. I’ll see if I can arrange a phone interview with Mr. Ladd.
I’ll also check into the crimes he alleges were committed and charged, in his book, to anti-wolf advocates and the Minute Men. Environmentalists and wolf release advocates read this blog; maybe they’ll give him a heads up and he’ll contact us.

Mr. Ladd can contact the blog at spottedeagleboy@gmail.com. I promise him I won’t blow up the phone line while he’s on the line.

EARLY COUNTY SUPREMACIST, BILLY THE KID.






















Excerpts from Amber Waves of Gain by Gene Ladd were found on Google, right out there in plain sight in the public domain.

SANTA FE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

Santa Fe County Commissioners
102 Grant Ave
Santa Fe, NM 87501-2061


To the Santa Fe County Commissioners:

I am writing you to suggest the Santa Fe County Commissioners consider reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf into your county’s forests and mountains. The Mexican Gray Wolf (Canus Lupis) once roamed freely in what are now New Mexico and the American Southwest. This beautiful and powerful carnivore was eradicated to the point of near extinction. The Mexican Gray Wolf is an essential component of the delicate balance in nature between predator and prey.

Governor Richardson advocates for wolf reintroduction.
On October 15-19, 2007 Governor Richardson designated “Wolf Awareness Week” throughout the state. The proclamation is part of a nationwide effort to highlight the essential role of wolves in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

“As keystone predators, wolves play a critical role in maintaining balanced ecosystems,” said Governor Bill Richardson. “We must redouble our efforts to promote healthy wolf populations coexisting with our communities and land stewards – both in New Mexico and across the country.”

I urge the Santa Fe County Commissioners to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a healthy Mexican Gray Wolf population in the forests and mountains of Santa Fe County. The contact person at the Fish and Wildlife Service is:

John Slown
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
2105 Osuna NE
Albuquerque, NM 87113

I’m confident Mr. Slown will be as enthusiastic as Governor Richardson regarding wolf reintroduction in Santa Fe County. Please query the citizens of Santa Fe County, as I’m sure they would back such a program in their county.

Thank You:

GOV. RICHARDSON PROCLAIMS WOLF AWARENESS WEEK

Governor Richardson Designates “Wolf Awareness Week”(Santa Fe, NM) –

" Today Governor Richardson issued a proclamation designating October 15-19, 2007 “Wolf Awareness Week” throughout the state. The proclamation is part of a nationwide effort to highlight the essential role of wolves in maintaining healthy ecosystems.
“As keystone predators, wolves play a critical role in maintaining balanced ecosystems,” said Governor Bill Richardson. “We must redouble our efforts to promote healthy wolf populations coexisting with our communities and land stewards – both in New Mexico and across the country."http://www.governor.state.nm.us/press/2007/oct/101507_02.pdf

Pete and Repeat

1. Otero County has an ordinance in place prohibiting the release of wolves in or adjacent to Otero County.

2. We the People have the right to ask just how many of OUR dollars have been spent on each wolf: in captivity, in release and in the new habitat, how much to monitor each wolf released, how much to remove each wolf and how much to maintain wolf after removal, or how much to release into new area, and on and on. Don't forget:

In 1990, figures released on the Bosque Del Apache Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico revealed that the whooping crane recovery had more than one million ($1,000,000) in each bird.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/flawed.html

ONE MILLION FOR A SINGLE WHOOPING CRANE. HOW MUCH PER WOLF?

A Preview of What's to Come in the Sacramentos?

Federal agency sued by 15 who lost homes
By Jeanette Steele
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 3, 2007

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Forest Service isn't responsible for the 2003 Cedar fire, a federal judge ruled this week.

Fifteen people who lost houses when the 2003 wildfire swept through the Cleveland National Forest sued, saying the Forest Service had a 100-year-old policy of putting out naturally occurring fires to preserve the forest for public use.

The result was unnaturally dense trees and brush, they said. Or, in other words, a recipe for an unholy firestorm.

Complete story at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071103-9999-1m3cedar.html

Learn the Lies and B.S.

If you can repeat the sentence below without a nervous smile, while maintaining eye contact and not crossing your fingers behind your back, you too can be a government expert. Turns out learning THIS "pretraining" is job security and takes precedence over good science.

Wolves can be pretrained in a controlled environment before they are released in the wildlife reserves allowing for trained adults to teach their offspring to avoid livestock and people. Gerard J. Washburn

NEW INFORMATION SENT IN BY RL AND PATTSY

Click on the title of this post to read the many articles RL and Pattsy have provided for the blog.

Hakimova's Statistics Stimulate Thought

Catron County is the largest county, by area, in New Mexico. At almost 7000 square miles, Catron County is larger than a few Eastern states.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catron_County,_New_Mexico

After I read JAMOLOV HAKIMOVA's graphs (biologist from Uzbekistan), I got out my calculator.

According to the Department of Interior: FWS Report February 8, 2006
"...Packs typically occupy large distinct territories [of] 200–500 square miles ... and defend these areas from other wolves or packs."

I did some calculations and here are the results:

7000 square miles divided by 200 square miles per wolf equals 35 wolves that Catron County can support according to the Department of Interior's own figures.

7000 square miles divided by 500 square miles per wolf is 14 wolves using the Department's higher number.

It turns out that Catron County is over-populated NOW with wolves because they have 57 or more wolves.

Just wait until February when the wolf attacks increase and we may have a killing field in Catron County one way or the other. That is an easy prediction to make. So, the "people cages" at the bus stops will be time and money well spent and not at taxpayer expense. We don't have long to see. Now, have a Merry Christmas, will ya?

One Simple Question

The Otero County Commissioners unanimously passed, October 17, 2007, an ordinance prohibiting the release of wolves, jaguars and grizzly bears in or adjacent to Otero County. http://co.otero.nm.us/Ordinances/07-06.pdf

Since our County Sheriff has sworn an oath to uphold laws and protect the citizens of Otero County, what difference does it make what anybody else says?

Wolf Language 101

Praise for learning Wolf Language 101:

"It is not an easy language to learn but anyone can do it if the motivation is high." Romulus Lupa

And his brother Remus: "If having wolves in your 'backyard' doesn't motivate you, nothing will."

Romulus and Remus are not the only satisfied students of Wolf Language 101. Many after them have gone to suck at the she-wolf tit.

Click on comment box below to see a sample of the course cirriculum.

FROM DOI: FWS REPORT FEB. 8, 2006

"...Since 1987, wolves in the NRM also have preyed on domestic animals, including cattle (Bos sp.), sheep (Ovis sp.), llamas (Lama glama), horses (Equus sp.), goats (Capra sp.),and dogs (Service et al. 2005)."

"...Packs typically occupylarge distinct territories (200–500 squaremiles (mi2) (518–1,295 squarekilometers (km2) and defend these areas from other wolves or packs."

"...Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-year olds and may annually produce young until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service 1992a; Service et al. 2001)."

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO DEATH OF MAN KILLED BY WOLVES

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO READ A CRITICAL ARTICLE IN NEWSPAPER FROM THE HEART OF WOLF RELEASE REGION.

What To Expect At The Wolf Meeting

Oh, no, not another informational workshop! Does consensus building or the Delphi principle ring a bell?


"Informational materials about the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program

A continuous overview presentation for participants to watch at their convenience

One-on-one opportunities to provide information to Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) representatives and agencies’ staff, and ask them questions about the rule change and EIS process. Questions about the process will be answered, but issues will not be debated.

Comment cards for participants to submit written comments during the meeting, or during the comment period which ends December 31, 2007"

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/ScopingPublicWolfMtgs.pdf

Paintballs, A Deterrent To Wolves?

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to allow people living in Mexican gray wolf country to harass wolves by hitting them with paintballs when wolves are in the vicinity of livestock and human residences. Paintballs deliver a stinging blow that will scare the wolf away and reinforce their natural fear of humans. The permitted use of paintballs will give citizens who encounter wolves a legal means to harass problem wolves. The sting of a paintball will encourage the wolves to stay away from places where there are humans. The goal is to keep wolves wild by diminishing interactions with humans, and decreasing the removal of wolves from the wild."

Again, we don't make this stuff up, we just report it.

Read the complete article at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/

LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM RL POSEY TO THE ADN

Dear Editor:



The article, “Wolf Forum Dec.3” in the November 23rd issue of the AND is one of the most biased articles I have ever read.

Essentially the article provides all of the glowing information about the benefits of wolves from the wolf supporters prejudice point of view but there is no mention about the many problems that the residents are having where wolves already exist or where the wolves have been forced upon the residents by the federal government with the continual support of the animal rights activists and liberal judges.

But the wolves are “Endangered”. Another fabrication. There are literally thousands of wolves in Alaska and Canada, they just aren’t in this area.

But these are the Mexican Grey Wolves. At the El Lobo Forum that was held at NMSU Las Cruces several years ago, some “wolf experts” stated that genetically all wolves are the same. They are called differently according to where they are located.

I receive information on a continual basis from a number of different states about the problems that residents are having where wolves already exist or where they have been released under the guise of the Endangered Species Act.

Just today I received a lengthy document from the Gila Livestock Grower’s Association (GLGA) stating that 10 cows and calves and a horse that have been confirmed killed by wolves since June and 5 other calves that have been confirmed killed by wolves since October.

That doesn’t include the domestic animals where there is evidence of kills, but no trace can be found. It is readily apparent that the wolves eat everything including the hide and bones.

According to the GLGA report, Gila ranchers and homeowners have reported 27 uncollared wolves within this past year with no investigation by the Wildlife Managers.

How many wolves are in the Gila?

If anyone knows the truth it is not being disclosed.

The AND article states in part, “livestock losses by wolves are reimbursed by Defenders of Wildlife”.

Another myth.

Actually very few reimbursements have been made. It has been extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of a wolf kill. The ranchers in the Gila have stated that essentially it takes video camera evidence of the kill taking place with date/time information recorded on the film to confirm a kill.

Wolves are valuable for the health of the ecosystem.

The last known wolf in Otero County was killed by government trapper, Ellis Wright, at least 60 years ago. The exact date is unknown, but Mr. Wright died in 1977 and was 83 years old when he died.

New Mexico and Otero County, and especially the livestock industry, have prospered very well for many years without any wolves.

The commercial livestock industry has been a major economic factor in New Mexico for many decades and in Otero County for over 125 years.

Where wolves have been re-introduced, the livestock and wildlife industries have taken major economic hits.

The same will be true if wolves are forced on Otero County.

It is time to draw a line in the sand and do whatever is necessary to keep that from happening.



Sincerely,



R L Posey

WATER IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST
(The remarks in italics are from the forum administrator. The links credit the text from which the information is referenced from.)

The SECURE WATER ACT: S2156 In its entirety.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110P6V4As:e27761:

I’ve provided text from existing transboundary water treaties, as well as specific pages with tables and figures for the reader to bookmark for future reference. Compare the current status of state, federal and international law and ‘binding’ treaties. On the left side of the blog, in that long and confusing list of links, are links to New Mexico water law.

Second International Symposium on Transboundary Waters Management
PERSPECTIVES OF A NEW INTEGRAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE BASIN OF THE RIO BRAVO/GRANDE.


p.5
With the approval of the new National Water Law in Mexico, and the consequent decentralization of the National Water Commission, it is opened the way to the creation of Basin Organisms. Which will have faculties to decide the regional hydric policy, this would allow a better integration of the binational basn council with the states that conform the American side basin of the Rio Bravo/Grande, since each one of it is authorized to decide on its hydric resources.
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=967080
p.6
Given the important nature of the subject of the water in the border zone of the Rio Bravo/Grande, it must be recognized that the investigation around the transboundary water management policies, it must take into account that the political action is quite often a action or adaptation to social or natural crises, instead of being strategic operations guided by a rationality.
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=967080

Table 1, on Page 3 of this study has contains the following text under ESTANDOS UNIDOS:
All water from Pecos, Devils rivers, Goodenough spring, Alamito, Terlingua, San Felipe and Pinito rivers. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=967080


First International Symposium on Transboundary Waters Management
Monterrey, Mexico, Nov. 2003, pp. 155-162
WATER AVAILABILITY MODEL AND GEODATABASE
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RIO GRANDE BASIN

p.3
The United States takes twice as much water from the Rio Grande as Mexico does. On average Mexico withdraws 1.2 billion cubic meters of water from the river every year (64 million through the Acequia Madre Canal in Ciudad Juarez, and the rest through the Anzalduas Canal near Reynosa). The United States diverts an average of 2.5 billion cubic meters. In Texas, municipal needs have priority over agriculture and industry in water apportionment between sectors. Thus, as population grows in cities along the border, growers will find themselves with less water for irrigation once municipalities take excess water. On the Mexican side, Reynosa and Matamoros are growing by about 2.5 percent annually. According to Mexican government, the actual population in Ciudad Juarez is almost 1.2 million people, in comparison with almost eight hundred thousand people in 1990.
Yet as projected demand increases, the supply of water available to meet it is expected to
diminish. The four largest metropolitan areas in the Rio Grande basin will present particular problems for future water planning: El Paso/Ciudad Juarez in the upper basin, Laredo/Nuevo Laredo in the river’s middle reach, and McAllen/Reynosa and Brownsville/Matamoros in the
lower reach (Eaton, 1987).

Link to First International Symposium on Transboundary Waters Management
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/riogrande/pdfs/Transboundary-Water-2003.pdf

Page 7 of this study displays two maps (Fig.3 & Fig.4) showing the river network of the Rio Grande basin and water bodies of the basin. Note the location of these water bodies in New Mexico and Texas.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/riogrande/pdfs/Transboundary-Water-2003.pdf


The Drought in the Conchos River Basin
The 1994 Treaty requires that the US must deliver annually 1,500,000 acre-ft (1,850 million cubic meters) of water from Colorado River, while Mexico must deliver to the US 1,750,000 acre-ft (2,159 million cubic meters) of water in five-year cycles from the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo and its effluents, mainly the Rio Conchos.
The United States have complied with this obligation, and in a number of occasions have given additional quantities to Mexico when there have been surpluses. Although, there have been Mexican complains about the high salt, pesticides, and fertilizers content of the delivered water.
Mexico supplied the compromised volume of water or more in all but three cycles. During the last two cycles (1992-1997 and 1997-2002), Northern Mexico experienced the most acute drought on record. As a result, Mexico was unable to meet with its deliveries of water to the US. During that time, a serious political pressure was continually increasing, making difficult an arrangement of the situation. A typical move started with a May 2002 press release by the American Embassy in Mexico, which stated that the United States was committed to work with Mexico for designing long-term measures for water conservation. It also said that the situation in southern Texas was pressing, and according to the State Goverment of Texas, the drought had originated the loss of 30,000 jobs and one billion dollar income. The Mexican side also had important losses and Mexico responded that there was not enough water for its own use. Today, there is an agreement between both countries but the troubling scenario of a scarce and fouled water region remains present.

US-Mexico Water Issueshttp://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/mckinney/ce397/Topics/US-Mex/US-Mex(2003).htm



Link to SOUTHWEST HYDROLOGYhttp://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N6/
Link to OPENCONGRESS.ORG.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2156/show

GLOBAL BOOK OF THE MONTH

During my research on transboundary water treaties, I found this publication, available from the U.N. for $80.00: Treaty Series 2313 I:41259-41336. This book is described as "every treaty and international agreement registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat since 1946 is published in the United Nations Treaty Series. At present, the collection includes about 30,000 treaties reproduced in their authentic languages, together with translations into English and French, as necessary." Did 30,000 treaties catch your eye? Don't forget the LAW OF THE SEA TREATY is still being considered for ratification in Washingtion DC. Does DC stand for 'deception'?

THE NEW NORMAL

I thought I’d share the NEW NORMAL philosophy embraced by the Department of Homeland Security. The NEW NORMAL, as defined by Vice President Dick Cheney, explained shortly after September 11: “Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life,” part of a “new normalcy” that reflects “an understanding of the world as it is.”

In an address Richard B. Cooper (Business Liaison Director, Private Sector Office, US Department of Homeland Security) gave before the Little Hoover Commission; Cooper refers to the NEW NORMAL. The link to Cooper’s speech is provided on the left side of the blog.

I was linked to this document from FEMA, to Home Land Security, to the document. I researched the NEW NORMAL, and came across a study by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. This study is concentrates on human rights as defined by the NEW NORMAL, Home Land Security and the United States involvement in world affairs.
There are some interesting quotes from this study pertaining to liberty.

P.ii
But the new normal is also defined by dramatic changes in the relationship between the U.S. government and the people it serves. Changes that have meant the loss of particular freedoms for some, and worse, a detachment from the rule of law as a whole. As this report details, the United States has become unbound from the principles that have long held it to the mast.

P.iii
PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
As the breadth of these examples should suggest, the changes that have become part of the new normal are not limited to the role of the courts. The two years since September 11 have seen a shift away from the core U.S. presumption of access that is essential to democratic government.

…the presumption that government is largely open to public scrutiny, while the personal information of its people is largely protected from government intrusion. Today, the default in America has become just the opposite.

… the work of the executive branch increasingly is conducted in secret, but unfettered government access to personal information is becoming the norm.

P.v
As the report that follows demonstrates in greater detail, the U.S. government can no
longer promise that individuals under its authority will be subject to a system bound by the rule of law. In a growing number of cases, legal safeguards are now observed only so far as they are consistent with the chosen ends of power. Yet too many of the policies that have led to this new normal not only fail to enhance U.S. security.

But also exact an unnecessarily high price in liberty. For a government unbound by the rule of law presides over a society that is something less than free.

The other thing I found interesting in my research of FEMA were contributing government departments that shape the agency’s policy. One of the departments that contribute to FEMA’s policy is the PRIVATE SECTOR LIAISON OFFICE (PSLO). In researching the PSLO, I was lead to international links, which led to the World Bank’s division of the European Private Sector Liaison Office. FEMA makes reference to several international organizations and contributions which shape policy for responding to disasters and disaster mitigation for state and local governments and disaster prone regions; as does Agenda 21, conceived at the UNESCO 1992 Rio Convention.

The reason I bring this up is the influence and trend of our government to either adopt or model policy after global agendas. The International Property Maintenance Code, conceived by the United Nations, is almost verbatim taken from Agenda 21. I’m sharing this ongoing research with blog readers as it progresses, rather than present it all at a later time. At some point, considering the obligations I have to the World Heritage Site invasive agenda, the wolf release programme, and the development of the New Mexico Property Rights Forum, I will have a more comprehensive posting on FEMA, hazard mitigation and how it affects private property rights. Until that time, here is more in the chain of evidence of how customary laws in the United States are being replaced with modern globalist law.

Ravens are Habitual Offenders?

"...government reports stated the decline of the desert tortoise was due to raven predation? They stated, "Raven predation will be to the extirpation [total extermination] of the tortoise population." The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decided to kill 1500 ravens. An environmental group immediately sued the BLM. The BLM settled out of court and agreed to kill only 56 ravens providing it could be shown that the ravens killed were "habitually preying on tortoises."

Mexican Wolf Canis lupus baileyi is listed as an endangered species
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/mexican_wolf.php


Some things to consider by: T. R. Mader, Reseach Director
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been used to:

1) Lock up vast areas of land from commodity use, i.e. the northern spotted owl used to shut down timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest.

2) Deprive an individual of their constitutional right of protection of private property, i.e. threat of $100,000 fine and mandatory prison sentence for killing an endangered wolf killing ones' livestock.

3) Deprive one of their property without just compensation, i.e. restriction on use and/or acquisition of land as critical habitat for endangered species.

The following changes, in order to bring balance and to put the human factor back into the ESA, are necessary:

1. Use only a biological and numerical definition of endangered species.

Biological Definition: Only pure species can be listed. No listing based solely upon sub-species, distinct populations or hybridization.

Problem Example: In 1944, Stanley Young and Edward Goldman listed 24 sub-species of the gray wolf. Today biologists feel there are no more than 5 sub-species of the gray wolf. Even these 5 sub-species should be viewed with caution as the biologists cannot tell them apart. The same can be said of the northern spotted owl and California spotted owl.

Numerical Definition: Only those species actually threatened with extinction (very few animals) can be listed.

Problem Example: The gray wolf population of North America numbers between 40,000 and 60,000 wolves. Due to national boundaries and "distinct populations" listings, wolves in Alaska and Canada are not considered in wolf population counts. Thus, the wolf, while in no danger of extinction, is "endangered" throughout the continental U.S., with the exception of Minnesota where it is listed as threatened. The same problem exists with bald eagles and grizzly bears (note: there are over 40,000 grizzlies in North America).

2. The socio-economic impacts of a listing must be considered. The current law makes no such consideration.

Problem Example: Land values in an area of Texas fell an estimated $300 million dollars due to an ESA listing of a songbird - the golden-cheeked warbler.

Also, the impacts of spotted owl listing on the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest. The Wall Street Journal reported a 25% cost increase in wood products which was directly related to the listing of the spotted owl. Thus, the nation, not just loggers, are impacted by the ESA listing of the spotted owl.

3. There must be just compensation on any taking of private property. The constitutional rights of citizens must be protected.

4. Individuals must have the right to protect their livelihoods and control endangered species threatening their livelihoods.

Problem Example: Endangered wolves, grizzly bears or eagles killing livestock cannot be killed by the owner of the livestock. A federal judge has ruled that a person does not have the constitutional right to protect their property from an endangered species. In 1990, over 7,500 sheep and lambs were killed by eagles in the states of Wyoming, Montana and Colorado alone.

5. The ESA must recognize that extinction is a normal part of the natural evolutionary process. The fossil record makes this abundantly clear. Failure to recognize this phenomena will result in wasting expertise and money on recovery programs doomed to failure by this natural process while people lose their jobs and go hungry.

6. Time and Expenditure limits must be placed on studies and recovery plans. The American taxpayer is entitled to fiscal responsibility of government agencies directed to saving endangered species.

Problem Example: In 1990, figures released on the Bosque Del Apache Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico revealed that the whooping crane recovery had more than one million ($1,000,000) in each bird.

7. Accountability must be required of government agencies charged with saving endangered species. This is in two areas: 1) Standards must be set for best scientific and commercial data. 2) Agency personnel must work with the average citizen and not against them.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/flawed.html

Another Box NPS Will Check Off Because The Decision Was Made Before We Even Knew About It

November 28, 2007

Jonathan Putnam
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
1201 Eye Street, NW (0050)
Washington DC 20005

Re: White Sands National Monument/World Heritage Site

Mr. Putnam:

Attached you will find five letters with signatures of Otero County residents who oppose the listing of White Sands National Monument (WSNM) as a World Heritage Site. These signatures were received at an Eagle Forum meeting yesterday in Alamogordo. Opponents have already tendered over 1,200 signatures to the Otero County Commission.

I am sure you are aware that the Commission passed a resolution and an ordinance prohibiting World Heritage Sites in Otero County. You should be aware that National Park Service employees violated other county ordinances in their planning and generation of the Application. This is all public information available on Otero County’s website.

Otero County residents elected our county commissioners to represent the will of their constituencies and that is exactly what the commission has done. This is what our form of government, a representational republic, is all about.

Mr. Putnam, I believe you have the discretion to make the decision that will remove WSNM from any consideration as a World Heritage Site unless and until the residents of Otero County amend or repeal their prohibition of such designations. In the interest of Otero County and indeed, our form of government, I ask you to do just so. This action would go a long way to restore trust of the National Park Service which is sorely lacking.

If you care to know other valid reasons to not consider WSNM for World Heritage Site designation, I invite you to view http://oteroresidentsforum.blogspot.com/. This site has generated much interest locally and internationally as shown on the map. We will continue to voice our strong opposition to an unnecessary and ill-conceived and illegal action by National Park Service employees.

If you have any questions, please contact me.




Janet T. White
P.O. Box 49
Alamogordo, NM 88311-0049

WOLVES IN A DRY FOREST...LOUSY IDEA

We've all been told, or rather had it rammed down our throats, that an unmanaged forest left untouched by man, is the desirable goal and future of forests in the West. When I look at the forests, I see too many stems per acre, root weak and top heavy trees starving for water, an unprecedented build up of under growth, fire ladders everywhere, and the potential for a record FIRE STORM season in 2008. Add to this dry, over grown tinderbox of a forest a WOLF RECOVERY program in Otero County. Here's the scenario as I see it: The wolves are released into the 'wild' in Otero County...a forest already dried out from too many trees. The wolves will find the water sources most readily available, which will be watering sources for ranching and human mountain dwellers. In essence, the wolf recovery program is occurring in an area where water is scarce, thus forcing them to seek water off the forest lands (as we have seen with elk over population), and forcing the inevitable confrontation between wolf and rancher. The rancher will be the loser in this confrontation, whether he gets a shot at the wolf or not. The wolf recovery and potential release in Otero County is one of the most insane policy decisions we've seen in...the last month. It seems Otero County has become the petre dish for environmental experimentation by junk scientists who have little or no standing in our community.

*Read the Wolf Parody in the comments section of this post. Click on the title of this post to bring up the post and comments on a separate page.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM RL POSEY TO THE ADN

Dear Editor:



The article, “Wolf Forum Dec.3” in the November 23rd issue of the AND is one of the most biased articles I have ever read.

Essentially the article provides all of the glowing information about the benefits of wolves from the wolf supporters prejudice point of view but there is no mention about the many problems that the residents are having where wolves already exist or where the wolves have been forced upon the residents by the federal government with the continual support of the animal rights activists and liberal judges.

But the wolves are “Endangered”. Another fabrication. There are literally thousands of wolves in Alaska and Canada, they just aren’t in this area.

But these are the Mexican Grey Wolves. At the El Lobo Forum that was held at NMSU Las Cruces several years ago, some “wolf experts” stated that genetically all wolves are the same. They are called differently according to where they are located.

I receive information on a continual basis from a number of different states about the problems that residents are having where wolves already exist or where they have been released under the guise of the Endangered Species Act.

Just today I received a lengthy document from the Gila Livestock Grower’s Association (GLGA) stating that 10 cows and calves and a horse that have been confirmed killed by wolves since June and 5 other calves that have been confirmed killed by wolves since October.

That doesn’t include the domestic animals where there is evidence of kills, but no trace can be found. It is readily apparent that the wolves eat everything including the hide and bones.

According to the GLGA report, Gila ranchers and homeowners have reported 27 uncollared wolves within this past year with no investigation by the Wildlife Managers.

How many wolves are in the Gila?

If anyone knows the truth it is not being disclosed.

The AND article states in part, “livestock losses by wolves are reimbursed by Defenders of Wildlife”.

Another myth.

Actually very few reimbursements have been made. It has been extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of a wolf kill. The ranchers in the Gila have stated that essentially it takes video camera evidence of the kill taking place with date/time information recorded on the film to confirm a kill.

Wolves are valuable for the health of the ecosystem.

The last known wolf in Otero County was killed by government trapper, Ellis Wright, at least 60 years ago. The exact date is unknown, but Mr. Wright died in 1977 and was 83 years old when he died.

New Mexico and Otero County, and especially the livestock industry, have prospered very well for many years without any wolves.

The commercial livestock industry has been a major economic factor in New Mexico for many decades and in Otero County for over 125 years.

Where wolves have been re-introduced, the livestock and wildlife industries have taken major economic hits.

The same will be true if wolves are forced on Otero County.

It is time to draw a line in the sand and do whatever is necessary to keep that from happening.



Sincerely,



R L Posey

Otero County Addresses NM Water and Natural Resources Committee, November 26-28, Santa Fe

DRAFT

TENTATIVE AGENDA

for the

WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

November 26-28, 2007

Room 307

State Capitol

Monday, November 26

9:00 a.m. Call to Order

–Senator Phil Griego, Chair

Deep Water Development

–Mark Fesmire, Director, Oil Conservation Division, EMNRD

–Ned Godshall (invited)

–Peter White, Attorney

10:30 a.m. Acequia Legislation for Adjudication Reform

–David Benavidez, Attorney

–Paula Garcia, New Mexico Acequia Association

12:00 noon Lunch

1:30 p.m. Responses to Committee Questions and Adjudication Reform Issues

–John D'Antonio, State Engineer

–D.L. Sanders, General Counsel, OSE

–Greg Ridgely, Counsel, OSE

4:30 p.m. Recess



Tuesday, November 27

9:00 a.m. Proposed Legislation

–Pecos alternative water rights retirement method

–Utton Transboundary Center appropriation

–Precision Irrigation appropriation

–Water Adjudication Reform Memorial

10:30 a.m. Indian Water Rights Negotiations and Settlements

–Estevan Lopez, Director, Interstate Stream Commission

–John D'Antonio, State Engineer

–Victor Marshall

12:00 noon Lunch

1:30 p.m. Water Markets

–Lee Brown, Economist

3:00 p.m. Mutual Domestic Water Consumers' Associations Critical Needs

–George Maestas, Rodarte Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association (invited)

–Charlie Sanchez, Rodarte resident

–Rick Martinez, Department of Finance and Administration (invited)

4:30 p.m. Recess



Wednesday, November 28

9:00 a.m. Game and Forest Management Impacts;

Grazing Units and Damage on National Forest Allotments

–Mrs. Jimmy Goss, Rancher

–Charles Walker, Rancher

County Resource Management Programs

–Doug Moore, Chair, Otero County Commission (invited)

–Marty Moore, Otero County Manger (invited)

Game and Fish Department Programs

–Alfredo Montoya, Game Commission Member

–Bruce Thompson, Director, Game and Fish Department

Range Improvement Task Force

–John Fowler, Chair, RITF (invited)

Forest Management Policies

–TBA, U.S. Forest Service (invited)

–Butch Blazer, State Forester

12:00 noon Adjourn

Letter to the Alamogordo Daily News Editor

Email and hand-delivered a copy of this Letter to the Editor to offices of the Alamogordo Daily News on November 14, 2007.


Another way to stop the listing of White Sands National Monument (WSNM) on UNESCO's Tentative List of U.N. World Heritage Sites would be for Cliff Spencer, Superintendent of WSNM, to withdraw the APPLICATION. Why should Mr. Spencer withdraw the APPLICATION? Because Mr. Spencer's APPLICATION avoids all references to buffer zones. If you read the case study of what occurred at Yellowstone National Park http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/wildlandtom.htm, you may have the reason for the omission of buffer zone's in the APPLICATION.

The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention FORMAT FOR THE NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST state 'Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination must include a statement as to why a buffer zone is not required for the proper conservation of the nominated property.' Emphasis added.

I have read the APPLICATION from cover to cover. There are no questions about buffer zones that are answered. Further, no maps were provided to the Otero County Commission showing the boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone. Here are two examples where buffer zones were ignored/omitted:

1.f. of the APPLICATION was to include the area of the nominated property, area of the buffer zone and total of the two. WSNM's APPLICATION simply gives the area of the National Monument. No area of the buffer zone. No total of the two.

4.b.(v) of White Sands' APPLICATION was to include the number of inhabitants within the property and the buffer zone with a total of the two and what year the count was taken. WSNM took another route and made up their own question: Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the property's Outstanding Universal Values? (Answer: No) and completely avoided the topic of inhabitants of the property, inhabitants of the buffer zone and the total inhabitants of the two areas.

I believe that employees of WSNM are in violation of several Otero County Ordinances dating back 14 or more years: http://co.otero.nm.us/index.html Kudos to Otero County, their website is vastly improved.

WSNM's APPLICATION is the work product of Cliff Spencer and Dianne White, former Resource Specialist at WSNM. Mr. Spencer's phone number is 479-6124, ext. 210. Dianne White is now back in the employment of the U.S. Forest Service. Her number is 434.7272. Perhaps Mr. Spencer and Dianne White have an explanation for the absence of buffer zone information in the APPLICATION. It could be a 'clerical' error. Remember when Congressman Stevan Pearce and Otero County were listed as supporters of the APPLICATION?

By the way, when you call Dianne White at the U.S. Forest Service you can also ask to speak to Cliff Spencer's wife (Mrs. Spencer) and Mr. Spencer's Chief Ranger's wife (Mrs. Jensen). It's a small world.

Janet White
A contributor to http://oteroresidentsforum.blogspot.com/
Alamogordo

HOW THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FORCED OUT JULIE MACDONALD

Former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Julie MacDonald resigned her position at FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service), after allegations and complaints against her resulted in a biased and ‘scathing’ investigation, published in an official Dept. of Interior, FWS document. The investigation was initiated after the FWS received an anonymous tip alleging departmental abuses by MacDonald. One of the major complaints against MacDonald was her challenging of findings by FWS field technicians. MacDonald would actually go into the field, find the FWS who had submitted finds based on field studies and hold the technician accountable for their findings. This unprecedented action on behalf of a high-ranking FWS person of authority offended the egos of field technicians who were unaccustomed to having their reports challenged on any level. Along with allegations of abuse of her authority were accusations she went outside the department to seek third party opinions on FWS findings that would impact public policy. In the official document denouncing MacDonald there is an admission by the department that there was no evidence of MacDonald releasing any ‘non-public’ information to the pubic or non-departmental entities.
MacDonald was probably one of the few, if not the only high ranking official of a federal bureaucracy that demanded accuracy and truthfulness in policy that could affect the use of public lands. For this realistic and courageous policy of accountability, MacDonald was forced out her position at the Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

In the official report published by the FWS, there are ‘Agents Notes’, that contradict the reports attacks on MacDonald, all initiated by an ‘anonymous tip’. The words ‘no evidence’, regarding accusations against MacDonald are in the ‘Agents Notes’.

What follows the resignation of Julie MacDonald? The Center for Biological Diversity has released a press statement which includes its intent to sue the federal government on the grounds of an ‘Environmentalists Challenge Political Interference with 55 Endangered Species in 28 States, Seek to Restore 8.7 Million Acres of Protected Habitat across the Country.

In the links listed on the left side of the blog, under Julie MacDonald: Chain of evidence, the reader can follow the inner-workings of how a government agency seeks to destroy the credibility of one individual who demanded credibility and accountability of the people reporting to her.

The following are taken from the offical FWS report 'investigatve findings' on Julie MacDonald.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
Julie MacDonald,
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Fish, Wildlife and Parks

P. 2
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation based on an anonymous complaint alleging that Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS), Fish, Wildlife and Parks, had been involved in unethical and illegal activities. Specifically, the complainant alleged that MacDonald had bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to change documents and alter biological reporting regarding the Endangered Species program, As our investigation progressed, we also developed information that MacDonald had disclosed nonpublic information to private sector sources.



Page 18

Agent's Note: According to Deputy Director Jones, the Interim Guidance for Critical Habitat Designation has never been publicly.released or published for comment. Jones said it remains an FWS internal document and probably will remain so indefinitely. During his interview, Jones speculated that MacDonald may have been sharing internal FWS ED documents with outside sources; however, he had no evidence to substantiate his contention.

The other former Assistant Secretary also said he never gave MacDonald permission to release nonpublic information. He admitted that the issue of MacDonald disclosing nonpublic information was a rumor within Fish, Wildlife and Parks; however, he said the subject was not officially brought to his attention in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary.

P. 17
When we interviewed Julie MacDonald, she said she is responsible for reviewing, commenting, and at some times editing critical habitat designation reports and five-year endangered species reviews.
MacDonald said she views her involvement in the Endangered Species Program as part of her duties, and she challenges the science produced by FWS field personnel and makes them accountable for the citations and rules they refer to in field reports. She admitted that she is not always right, as in the case
of the vernal pools, but added, "The figures were a mistake and very embarrassing, but they didn't make a difference in the outcome of the review."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/esa/pdfs/DOI-IG-Report_JM.pdf


TESTIMONY OF
JULIE MACDONALD
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

However, we believe that resource management does not need to come at the expense of the needs of local communities, and the Administration is committed to achieving a balance between conservation and growth using all the available tools. At the Department, this commitment means implementing a cooperative approach toward the recovery of endangered and threatened species through the development of partnerships with states, tribes, landowners, and other stakeholders. To that end, I would like to discuss how the Administration is working to make implementation of the ESA more efficient and effective.

Designation of Critical Habitat
While the Department has made great strides in improving the administration of the ESA, one area of implementation that continues to be both a challenge and a source of controversy is the designation of critical habitat. As we have previously detailed in testimony before this Committee, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) has been embroiled in a relentless cycle of litigation over its implementation of the listing and critical habitat provisions of the Act. The Service now faces a Section 4 program facing serious difficulties due not to agency inertia or neglect, but to a lack of scientific or management discretion to focus available resources on the listing actions that provide the greatest benefit to those species in greatest need of conservation.

The Service has characterized the designation of critical habitat as required by the Act as the most costly and least effective class of regulatory actions undertaken by the Service. It is often of little additional value or counterproductive and can result in negative public sentiment to the species and the Act itself. This negative public sentiment is fueled by inaccuracies in the initial area designated when we must act with inadequate information to meet strict statutory deadlines. For example, under the Act, the Service is required to designate critical habitat concurrent with a final listing determination, using the best scientific data available. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, the information supporting such designations have later been found to be incomplete, sometimes resulting in a cycle of litigation, described in further detail below.

In closing, I would like to reiterate our commitment to working with Congress to find a solution to the problems associated with critical habitat designation and other related issues. At the same time, the Department will continue to strengthen our partnerships and expand the use of cooperative conservation tools. It is our goal to use cooperative conservation and the tools at our disposal to implement programs that will eliminate the need for listing by conserving species before they become threatened.


Links to the Chain of Evidence in the Julie MacDonald resignation can be found on the left side of the blog page. I urge all readers to read these links. Julie MacDonald's story is why we have uncontrolled and unchallenged junk science policy and a policy of federal land grabs and designation of wilderness areas, endangered species and a continuing threat to private property owners in the United States.

POOR AND NON-WHITE: FORCIBLE EVICTIONS RAISE CONCERNS TO HAVE WHS DESIGNATION REMOVED IN PANAMA

From the Panama News: Jan. 2005
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_11/issue_01/letters_01.html


San Felipe residents protest attempts to displace them


cc: UNESCO, Paris, France
ICC-ROM-Rome, Italy
IUCN-Gland, Switzerland
L`OCPM-Quebec, Canada

We are the residents of Historic Center of San Felipe of Panama City, the capital of Panama, also known as the "Casco Viejo." Our people are very peaceful families and quiet people who are facing forced evictions by every type of subterfuge, chicanery and trickery.

Since our community has been declared a World Cultural Heritage Site in 1997, over half of the official census populations from the 1990 to the 2000 census has been forced to move or been forcibly evicted.

Since 2000, we figure that another 2700 individuals have been forcible removed or forced out by all sorts of trickery, threats and chicanery.

We need your help in ascertaining our social and economic rights as poor and working people with a right to live in a historic center world heritage site and seek socio-economic technical advice in finding ways to create training in artisan and micro business skills in learning how to address the Metropolitan Development Plans and new tourism orientations towards international cruise ship seasonal visitors. We understand that UNESCO has about $180 million allocated for the Panama City Historic Center area here. We want to elect our representatives to sit in the planning sessions for the use of these funds and their implementation.

We as a neighborhood NGO would like your technical expertise in writing grants and projects to use said funds for the benefit the poor and working class residents of our Historic Center of San Felipe. The idea would be to be able to eke out incomes and enough to cover the reconstructions and restorations of the wooden heritage and other era buildings within the designated world heritage site.

We have denounced and condemned for years --- in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 --- the forcible evictions of the poorest working people of all ages from their homes to UNESCO, Paris, France; ICOMOS-Paris, France; ICCROM-Rome, Italy; and L`OCPM-Quebec, Canada!

We propose and petition to have a UNESCO monitoring office, here in San Felipe, Casco Viejo, the Historic Center of Panama City, Republic of Panama.

We petition you to have San Felipe removed from the list of World Heritage Sites for the flagrant violations of HR and forcible evictions of our residents, particularly the old pensioners and the low income working poor and for the destruction of the historic sites, referring as our legal basis to Section E, Articles 36-47 to remove a world heritage site.We petition for your help! Your guidance! Your training in grant writing and setting up a MONITORING OFFICE in San Felipe. We need your help in getting resident representation on local bodies having jurisdiction over the historic site.

Furthermore, we plead for help: SOS... SOS...



Anibal Chacón González
President, The Association of Residents of San Felipe

OTERO COUNTY SOVEREIGN HERITAGE SITE COMMITTEE

The OTERO COUNTY SOVEREIGN HERITAGE SITE COMMITTEE HAS NOMINATED WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT FOR DESIGNATION AS AN OTERO COUNTY SOVEREIGN HERITAGE SITE.

The comment period for the public to express their views as to the potential nomination by the OTERO COUNTY SOVEREIGN HERITAGE SITE COMMITTEE has begun. The comment period extends from Nov. 14th, 2007 to Dec. 13th, 2007. Comments may be posted in the comment section of this post.

Letters to Putnam and Pearce Address Buffer Zones

The letters at the bottom of the page have been modified to point out to Congressman Pearce and Mr. Putnam that White Sands National Monument's Application did not include any references to buffer zones although answers to questions about buffer zones are required by the Guidelines even if no buffer zone is anticipated.

If you have already printed up the prior letters, that is fine. These are basically the same with added detail.

NPS Press Release Gave Instructions

To obtain a printed copy of the staff report on World Heritage Sites, the reader was directed to email April Brooks, International Cooperation Specialist. I don't make this stuff up, I just report it. Here is her response to my request:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: U.S.World Heritage Tentative List‏
From: April_Brooks@nps.gov
Sent: Wed 11/07/07 4:55 PM
To: J T WHITE (DELETED)
Cc: Clarissa McGinn (DELETED); Marty Moore (mmoore@co.otero.nm.us); Pamela Heltner (pheltner@co.otero.nm.us)

Below, you will find a link that contains the staff report, which is 145 pages. http://www.nps.gov/oia/TLEssayFinal.pdf
Thank you
April E. Brooks
International Cooperation Specialist
National Park ServiceOffice of International Affairs
1201 Eye St NW (0050)5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.354.1800Fax: 202.371.1446
E-Mail: april_brooks@nps.gov
"I am two fools, I know, for loving and saying so..."-John Donne

More Jonathan Putnam

http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/sisterparks/listsisterparks.htm NPS Sister Park Program, Office on International Affairs referenced in Putnam article below.

http://anpr.org/intl.htm Putnam Article: International Activities Span the Globe, Ranger Magazine

http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/flight.htm Park Flight Migratory Bird Program, NPS-OIA, linked to:
Partners in Flight
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Bird Identification Center
Neotropical Migratory Birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Site)
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center
Globally Important Bird Areas in the United States
Audubon Important Bird Areas Program
International Migratory Bird Day
Redwood Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service
Institute for Bird Populations
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Bird Studies Canada
The Nature Conservancy Migratory Bird Program
BirdLife International
American Bird Conservatory
Migratory Bird Conservancy


http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/pip_site.pdf (Nature Conservancy list of places in peril)

http://www.nps.gov/bibe/naturescience/mab.htm (Chihuahuan Desert Biosphere Reserve)

Jonathan Putnam: National Park Service, Dept. of Interior

Click on the Title to read cut and paste article from:

http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/minutes/may_05_washington_mtg_6.htm
Due to length of article on Mr. Putnam, the text is posted in the comment section of this post. The text is from:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cooperative Environmental Managemen
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting
Radisson Hotel, Phillips Conference Room
Washington, DC 20037

May 10, 2005

Veterans' Day Parade

Kudos to the organizers of the Veterans' Day Parade in Alamogordo, New Mexico. It was the largest I can recall seeing in many, many years. We can feel a resurgence of patriotism here; it is palpable. Thank you, veterans. Thank you organizers, participants and those who stood along the route in honor of the sacrifices made by our military past and present.