The Dreaded Confirmation of Hydatid Disease in a Human in Northern Rocky Mountains Region
Posted by

*Editor’s Note* Below is a story obtained by the editor of The Outdoorsman, George Dovel, from a woman who was eventually diagnosed with hydatid disease. I first want to thank the victim for being willing to share a very personal and difficult event in her life with others. Secondly, I want to thank George Dovel and others for the persistence and hard work of bringing together the necessary information needed to present to the public official confirmation of the presence of hydatid disease in the Northern Rocky Mountain region.
I am personally angry and disgusted at the behavior of humans, who disregarded the warnings given them of the diseases carried by wolves and yet, perhaps blinded by their own greedy lust for personal agendas, and human behavior that has to be regarded as criminal, with near complete disregard for human health and safety, went ahead with their project – a project so bizarre many have asked who in their right minds would deliberately introduce an infectious disease, deadly to humans, into the midst of human population?
As you read this one person’s account with dealing with a disease that she contracted as the result of human behavior that places the welfare of an animal above that of a human, consider what is outside your door and why.
Idaho can brace itself for more stories like the one you are about to read. Nothing short of criminal charges should be brought against the perpetrators of this crime and the crimes that continue while those who wield the legal authority to do something about it, refuse, leaving citizens held hostage.
What a despicable display of twisted human behavior. God save us.

I am an Idaho Woman with a Story to Tell

Name on File

From 2001-2003 I had intestinal problems that didn’t seem to go away. I had various exams, tests, and colonoscopies. No definitive diagnosis was made. I concluded it must be stress from a recent accident of my son that left him a quadriplegic.

In June of 2003 I decided to go to an Internist in Boise to see if something was missed. She had ordered a CT scan as a diagnostic tool, and it showed a large “grapefruit size” cyst in the left lobe of my liver, which she was told was probably benign, as cysts are commonly found in the liver and to just watch to see if any symptoms develop.

In December, I went back to the Internist for my yearly physical and told the doctor that I had been having chest pains just below my sternum and that I could feel a lump there. I questioned if it could be a cyst. It would keep me awake at night. Another CT scan was taken and the large cyst was noted in the area of my symptoms. Several other cysts were seen on the right lobe of the liver.
It was concluded that the cyst should be aspirated and let the cyst walls collapse against themselves and adhere to each other. A “Special Procedure Radiologist” performed the procedure at the hospital. He placed a tube into the cyst just below the sternum and aspirated the fluid. The fluid was clear, more so than he expected. He said there didn’t appear to be any problem but was sending it to pathology and my doctor would call me with the result.

The next day my doctor called and said that the pathologist had just given her “Surprising News”. He had told my doctor “You won’t believe what I found! Echinoccocus Granulosus or Hydatid Disease.” My doctor told me how rare it was in the United States. I now knew I had a cyst full of tiny worms in my liver…

My doctor informed me that I would need to have another more complicated aspiration. I decided to wait for 10 days until after Christmas since the whole family was coming and I didn’t want to spoil anything for them. A few days later I noticed the aspiration site had become


Excised portion of author’s liver (left lobe) after surgery, with clearly visible intact swollen hydatid cyst inside.

quite red, about the size of a silver dollar, and my temperature was up to 103 degrees. My pain also increased as well and the lump had begun to fill up again and could be palpated, or felt.

My doctor referred me to an Infection Disease Specialist who prescribed Albendazol for me to begin taking immediately and for a re-aspiration of the cyst. All the literature the doctors could find said that a cyst my size should be removed surgically, resecting, or removing, part of the liver. But the doctors felt that since I had tolerated the procedure so well that last time that it might work to try it again and not have to have major surgery. They would aspirate the fluid again, then infuse a dye to rule out any extensions into other portions of the liver, and then inject an alcohol solution to kill the worms and help sclerosis in so it would collapse and adhere to itself.

This procedure was attempted, but concern of the color of the fluid (milky not clear), caused them to terminate the procedure waiting for lab results. I was hospitalized and put on IV antibiotics, with the tube in my liver through my chest still in place. I spiked a temperature of 104 degrees. After a few days of antibiotic treatment my temperature came back down and no bacteria was found upon the culture of the aspirant and the procedure was redone to completion.

I initially felt better with the pressure reduced as the CT scan now indicated that only 20% of the cyst remained open. However symptoms soon returned and another CT scan done three weeks later showed it 50% full of fluid again.

The Infection Specialist went to the hospital to look at the path slides and confirmed it was indeed the Hydatid “worms”. He recommended another aspiration of the cyst. I was really tired, sore, and becoming depressed over this whole situation. I expressed my desire to explore my option of surgical removal of the cyst. He recommended a liver specialist in Seattle. He explained that the surgery would be quite difficult and that the recovery would be about two months.

The Seattle doctor called me after seeing my CT scans and pathology reports. He said “the aspirations would never work on a cyst that size.” This was a bit disappointing as I had been billed over $20,000 so far and I still had the cyst!

I asked the doctor if he had a lot of experience with Hydatid Disease, since I was referred to him. He responded that he had only five patients with this disease


Excised portion of author’s liver (left lobe) after hydatid cyst was removed following surgery.

because it is so rare in the United States. He then added that he specializes in liver surgery and had been referred patients from all over the west. My surgery was scheduled for March 8.

I arrived a day early to have all the usual tests, CT scan, X-rays, labs and meet with the other doctors who would be working on my case; Infection Specialist, Resident Surgeon, Chief Surgeon, and Anesthesiologist. What a day.

We were advised of the ramifications of such a surgery since it was a major surgery and should have a very large incision to gain access extending from my sternum down and curving around the rib cage towards the back and along the waist line. It would have to be so large in order to check the cysts in the right lobe of my liver.

Nearly half of my liver was removed. Two or more cysts on the right lobe were aspirated but found benign. The doctors were pleased with the surgery but insisted I stay on the Albendazol for another 3 months, have blood word done for the next three months, and a CT scan at least once a year for the rest of my life to watch the other smaller cysts.

The doctor was very pleased with my progress and released me from the hospital after 5 days but I had to stay in Seattle for another 5 days before returning home. The Albendazol was quite hard on me causing my hair to thin a bit, but my recovery was steady and lasting. I still have a CT scan each year. My sixteen inch incision scar is a reminder to me that the Hydatid Disease can be transferred to humans. It is real. People need to be educated and take great caution.

(NOTE: This brave lady’s husband reportedly stood up during a public meeting and described how, contrary to wolf managers’ claims, his wife had a Hydatid Cyst removed from her liver which cost $63,000, and said they were hoping and praying other cysts had not been missed. His wife gave me copies of her pathology reports, wrote the foregoing story and title, and provided her medical photographs for publication in The Outdoorsman. I promised not to publish their names or clues to their location to prevent their being harassed by the wolf worshippers who abuse and threaten those who tell the truth about the downside of living with wolves. – ED)

Please take the time to read additional warnings from Dr. Valerius Geist about hydatid disease.

This is not the only case of hydatid disease in this region. Read another man’s account given during testimony before the Idaho State Legislature concerning HB 343.

Wolves killing fewer cattle in Wyoming than in Montana, Idaho
Posted by

As Wyoming fights to join Montana and Idaho in getting its gray wolves removed from the endangered species list, a new report indicates that its cattle have fared better with the predator.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture last week reported that the number of cattle killed in Wyoming by wolves was actually decreasing while kills in neighboring Montana and Idaho had risen sharply.

Wolf-killed cattle have angered ranchers in all three states. In 2010, wolves killed 570 adult cows and 1990 calves in Idaho, according to the USDA Cattle Death Loss report issued last week. Wolves in Montana killed 440 adult cows and 852 calves. Wyoming fared better with 74 adult cows killed and 511 calves.<<>>

Ranchers cheered by lifting of wolf protections
Posted by

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Ranchers in Western states said they’re hopeful the removal of gray wolves from the federal endangered species list will make it easier to hunt the predators and stem losses of cattle and sheep.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service earlier this month formally lifted federal protections for more than 1,300 wolves in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Utah. That will allow hunting of the carnivores that ranchers say have taken a steady toll on their livestock over the past two decades.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Irresponsible Fools Indoctrinate Kids with Lies about Wild Animals
Posted by

Five-year-old Angeline Moore heard the stories of Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs before her Saturday visit to the Chester Library — where she came face to face with a live wolf.

Only this gray timber wolf wasn’t big and bad — OK, she was big. However, she was more subdued and quiet.

She was Saffire, a 7-year-old wolf handled by her owner, Vinnie Reo, who operates Wolf Visions, a Sussex County nonprofit group that supports protecting and keeping wolves in the wild.<<<Read the Rest>>>

The Endangered Species Act Dances With Wolves Continues
Posted by

Gardners, PA –(Ammoland.com)- In an unprecedented and increasingly controversial move, the United States judicial branch has begun a new chapter in the on-going saga of species protection, reports the Wildlife Management Institute.

Late last month, Congress passed a rider attached to the hotly debated 2011 fiscal appropriations bill that effectively reinstated the 2009 wolf delisting rule for the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment (NR DPS). That marked the first time any species, plant or animal, has been removed from the endangered species list by legislative action.

The bipartisan compromise to include the rider came just hours before a more conservative settlement to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho only was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Donald Malloy.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Is There a Magic Number of Wolves Needed for Survival?
Posted by

One of the biggest arguments left unresolved by last year’s wolf lawsuit was the most obvious: How many wolves are enough?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took the gray wolf off the endangered species list in 2009, with the caveat that at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs endure in each of the three states in the northern Rocky Mountain population (Montana, Idaho and Wyoming).

Recent surveys found at least 1,700 wolves in that area – more than enough to justify delisting.

But a coalition of environmental groups sued the government, claiming those numbers were wrong. To survive and thrive, they argued, the population needed at least 2,000 and preferably 5,000 wolves.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Smoke and Mirrors
Posted by

Guest blog by Jim Beers

The Obama administration says it is taking 5,500 wolves off the endangered list in eight states in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes” and “The move will turn control over the predators to state wildlife agencies”. Really?

Can any state now reduce wolf numbers overall drastically (and maintain them for a decade or more) to recover big game herds to pre-wolf levels? I don’t think so.

Can any state say there will be no wolves East of a certain highway or South of a certain river? I don’t think so.

Can any state set wolf population targets lower than what USFWS or DOW or NRDC or CBD declare? I don’t think so.

Will state wolf counts (in spite of the fact that wolf counting is a very malleable art and NOT a science or reliable technique) have any legal standing when the foregoing nefarious characters say they are “too high”? I don’t think so.

Will any state be allowed the full range of control methods (trapping, snaring, aerial shooting, M-44’s, etc.) to quickly and certainly regain or gain control of highly overpopulated wolf packs and wolf-infested areas? I don’t think so.

Will citizens be “allowed” to kill any wolf at any time near homes or campgrounds, or in livestock pastures, or threatening watchdogs or hunting dogs, or near towns or schools or school bus stops? I don’t think so.

Will federal agencies, federal employees, and a bad law be any longer responsible when rural residents are killed and maimed after they (the feds) relinquish “control over the predators to state wildlife agencies”? I don’t think so.

Will federal Pittman Robertson Fund administrators approve funding applications for state “research” projects to determine what level of wolves are compatible with current livestock operations?; with big game populations and harvests of 10 years ago?; with current rural domestic dog populations?; with the safety of rural residents as they live, work, and recreate in rural America? How about “research” projects on techniques and methods to “manage” wolves or ways to finance state wolf “management” programs in a period of state economic instability? I don’t think so.

Will state efforts to offer bounties or participate in wolf fur sales or other schemes to finance management and control of wolves be allowed? I don’t think so.

Will urban and radical Americans, federal bureaucrats, and federal politicians that have all imposed these wolves on rural America by force, pay for maintaining and intervening on behalf of all these wolves that they are unaffected by but that they insist on continuing to impose on rural American families, economies, and communities? I don’t think so.

The radicals, the federal bureaucrats, the state bureaucrats, and certain federal politicians were scared by the last election. They were even more scared by the almost-successful Congressional run at defunding all federal funds for National Public Radio (NPR) and the world’s biggest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.

(Note: NPR is designed like Nazi/Communist Government media propaganda arms and Planned Parenthood is the “fruit” of Margaret Sanger’s 1920’s campaigns to rid the world of “inferiors” and breed a super race. Like government-media and government population control, Endangered Species concepts spring from Nazi dictates about “Pre-Roman Plants and Animals” and the desire by a few to control the rest of society. These three Progressive cornerstones rose together and could logically die together in a swarm of popular disgust. The radicals like DOW, HSUS, NRDC, TNC, CBD, et al and their federal and state enablers are scared stiff that if there are real federal budget cuts that NPR and Planned Parenthood could go down with their erstwhile and similarly disguised partner, The Endangered Species Act. Just as the NPR denies it is a progressive propaganda machine and Planned Parenthood denies it kills humans at their earliest and most vulnerable stage of life; so too does the ESA machine deny it is about destroying Constitutional guarantees, property rights, animal ownership, hunting, fishing, oil drilling, dams, farming, ranching, rural economies, logging, public land management and use, and Judaeo-Christian concepts of the relationship of man and his environment.)

While they are all (radicals, bureaucrats, and politicians) worried about their own futures, they are creating this illusion of “hearing the public” and showing how they can “get along”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider the questions posed at the beginning of this article and ask yourself, how it is possible to not be able to eradicate a wild animal population (especially a deadly and very harmful animal population) in any state while simultaneously trumpeting that said “state wildlife agencies” “will have control over the predators”? The sad fact is that the “state wildlife agencies” will dance to the federal/radical tune and the residents of the state will pay the bills.

Before you say, “so what?” or say this is all academic, consider one last point. The radicals and bureaucrats are currently crying all over the newspapers and internet and magazines about how this “precedent” (of Congress delisting wolves by state in but a handful of states as a “quick fix as a Budget Bill Amendment) is “unscientific” and dangerous. Au contraire!

When the US Senators and Congressmen crafted this little bit of chicanery of delisting certain wolves in certain states they really did 2 things. They saved their hides by “responding to their constituents” in a way that could be just as quickly be reversed when opportune AND they gave the radicals and their bureaucrat enablers a precedent for when The Tea Party and The Debt and Joblessness et al miraculously disappear and they are safely back in control. Why not have Congress “List” that bogus Lizard in Texas that is supposed to shut down the oil rigs? Why not have Congress “List” Eastern Cougars or Jaguars to further evacuate rural America and destroy hunting? Why not just have Congress “List” Free-Roaming Buffalo”? Urban voters would love all this “very important” stuff and open the spigot of election funding and international support and volunteerism to guarantee lifetime political careers and rich, retired bureaucrats, radical “Directors”, and lobbyists!

This quick Congressional “fix” is a two-edged sword. I thought about this as the current President’s approvals jumped with the Osama affair. Something as unforeseen as the death of Osama or an earthquake in China or some other such incident could result in Democrats or RINO’s (call ‘em Country Club Republicans or whatever) keeping or regaining control of federal power. Say what you will, both of them or either of them are advocates and enablers of the radical movements that have imposed and strengthened this ESA behemoth. They accept money from them, enable their agendas and will respond to UN or World Wildlife Fund et al claims of why states and Constitutions are irrelevant and why central governments need to reclaim all rural American lands to make inviolate Nature sanctuaries (i.e. outdoor churches attended only via satellite and TV).

As long as the ESA stands, like the Sword of Damocles, none of us are safe.

Jim Beers

5 May 2011

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net

You Might Want to Think Twice About Visiting Montana This Summer!
Posted by

Before making the move to Montana almost four years ago, it was the beauty of the mountains, wide valleys, fast running clear streams, wooded ridges and back country lakes that had drawn me here again and again, year after year. Right at the top of all the natural draws which kept me returning was an abundance of wildlife. On any given day in the western half of this huge state, I could possibly see elk, mule deer, buffalo, whitetails, mountain goats, pronghorns, black bear, bighorn sheep, and Shiras moose – with the occasional chance of spotting a mountain lion, grizzly, wolf, or possibly even a wolverine.

Being an avid hunter, it was the diversity of hunting opportunities that finally helped me to decide that Montana is where I wanted to live the rest of my life. Well, that and one very sweet Montana gal with which I had fallen in love. She loves the outdoors every bit as much as I do. And we get out as often as we can, camping just about every weekend during good weather…and often even when it’s not so good.

With this said, the title of this piece might make you wonder, “What has changed?”<<<Read the Rest>>>

Idaho and Montana prepare for wolf hunts
Posted by

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

April 24, 2011, 5:57 p.m.
Reporting from Stanley, Idaho—
It used to be you could look across the ridge from Ron Gillett’s house and a couple of dozen elk would be foraging for grass. Then you’d hear a scary kind of howling, and the elk would take off, a pack of wolves close on their heels.

It got so that Gillett couldn’t stand to see the spindly elk calves fall into the wolves’ hungry embrace — not when hunting elk has been part of his livelihood for much of his life. He’d get screaming mad at wolf advocates who came to watch in wonder as the packs executed their skillful and deadly dances around their prey.<<<Read the Rest>>>

The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act – Part IV
Posted by

Please read, “The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act – Part I, Part II, Part III.

As we’ve plodded along learning about who or what was behind the drafting of the Endangered Species Act, and why that Act is so crippling and destructive to the American dream, seemingly focused directly on our freedoms and achieving the ultimate “American Dream”, perhaps even more troubling for us are those “other international agreements”.

I briefly referenced UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in Part III, so let’s take a closer look.

On July 12, 1973, the United States signed on to the World Heritage Convention (WHC). (Is it mere coincidence that the United States signed onto many treaties and conventions all around a short period of time in which Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act? I think not. It appears much of it was orchestrated and all geared toward accomplishing the same goals.) In 1972 the directive of the WHC was the, “protection of the world cultural and natural heritage”. A strategy was soon developed to construct a “World Heritage List” that was “balanced” and diverse. In other words, they wanted more properties, of different kinds, in more countries.

The WHC strategy sounds oppressive and power seeking, that is unless you advocate the abdication of sovereignty while advancing a United Nations-led one world government:

By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage to better reflect the full spectrum of our world’s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention.

This new vision goes beyond the narrow definitions of heritage and strives to recognize and protect sites that are outstanding demonstrations of human coexistence with the land as well as human interactions, cultural coexistence, spirituality and creative expression.

Crucial to the Global Strategy are efforts to encourage countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare Tentative Lists and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently not well-represented on the World Heritage List. (emboldening added)

Article 8 of the WHC establishes that the WHC is part of UNESCO, a United Nations entity.

Because the U.S. is a signed member of WHC/UNESCO, we are obligated through this convention to designate and/or establish “World Heritage sites”, i.e. Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, etc. This convention also demands the protection of habitat for listed threatened or endangered species.

Ceding control of these public properties is troubling enough, but the Convention becomes even more far reaching. WHC/UNESCO is granted power through this treaty, signed by the U.S. to take “buffer zones” around “World Heritage properties” if they so deem it necessary for the protection of “their” property. These “buffer zones” can be as wide as 5 miles, or whatever is necessary to “preserve” world heritage. It just could be your land and your property.

Who decides what WHC/UNESCO will do? When WHC was established as a function of UNESCO, a “committee” was formed to administer the Convention. 21 members come from the membership of signed countries. “States Parties” include: Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Iraq, Jordan, Mali, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates. Ooops! Well, I’ll be! The United States isn’t even on this committee.

Three other seats on the WHC Committee are filled with a representative from each of the following organizations: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN, “helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges”. The IUCN brings together all the world governments, along with all the non governmental organizations, i.e. environmental groups, many of which are behind efforts like restoration of gray wolves and other stifling projects in the U.S.; International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM). Centered in Rome, the “ICCROM is an intergovernmental organization (IGO) dedicated to the conservation of cultural heritage. It exists to serve the international community as represented by its Member States”. It should also be pointed out that the brainchild for ICCROM was UNESCO.; International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). An international organization, a branch of UNESCO in reality, focused on “conservation” with an eye to the preservation of “architectural heritage”.

So, in addition to the 21 committee members from member states, UNESCO saw to it that their other international organizations covered, preservation of environmental and development properties (IUCN), preservation of cultural heritage (ICCROM) and the preservation of architectural heritage (ICOMOS). Again, these organizations and the utilization of them is not merely coincidental.

The WHC Committee, all connected and interconnected to and within the United Nations, sees to it that each member state fulfills its obligations to designate “World Heritage properties”, including habitat to save threatened and/or endangered species. So who gets to decide which properties and which habitats from the U.S. get turned over to the WHC?

Please bear in mind that I am still writing about the Endangered Species Act. I have been trying to help you establish from whence the ESA gets its authority as listed but not well defined in the ESA Sec. 3.

The WHC Committee ultimately decides which properties or habitat will become listed as a World Heritage property. Even though some members of the committee can and do make “recommendations”, i.e. they can recommend properties and habitat not necessarily in their own country, WHC has authority to work with non governmental agencies and/or non members of WHC to derive a list. We know that U.S. groups like the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, American Rivers and the National Parks and Conservation Organization, worked with WHC to get Yellowstone, through UNESCO, designated as, “World Heritage in Danger”. This was in 1995. (Note: Odd that this would happen at just about the same time gray wolves were being “reintroduced” to Yellowstone. So you now should have a better understanding as to how worldwide the effort was and still is.)

Are you beginning to get the idea that Americans are losing their parks and wildlife places, along with historic properties and vast amounts of land designated as critical habitat for endangered species, to someone other than just the United States Government? Is surrendering our sovereignty acceptable? Just who is in charge around here?

As a member of WHC/UNESCO, the United States works with the WHC Committee through the US/ICOMOS, a “committee” in the U.S. that works toward living up to the requirements of the Convention. It’s not an easy chore finding information on US/ICOMOS, but we do know that it is administered through the U.S. Department of State’s Office of International Organization and the Department of Interior’s National Park Service.

The authority to implement the World Heritage Convention and work with non governmental organizations (ngo) comes from passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and subsequent amendments. The Amendment of 1980, which sequentially gave the U.S. authority to establish “heritage” places, fails to reveal that 7 years prior, the U.S. signed the World Heritage Convention and the purpose really of this amendment was to meet its obligatory responsibilities to WHC. Interestingly enough, the Amendment of 1980 states:

(7) although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities.

It says it all without saying it all. Is it really “necessary and appropriate” that our federal government should expand its power and reach to take private property with the ultimate goal of essentially gifting it to international interests?

A Federal panel for World Heritage was formed within US/ICOMOS, also through amendments of the National Historic Preservation Act, to ensure administration of and cooperation with the WHC and to process nominations for World Heritage properties.

That panel is comprised of the following:
1.) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior;
2.) National Park Service
3.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4.) President’s Council on Environmental Quality
5.) Smithsonian Institution
6.) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
7.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
8.) U.S. State Department

While it is important to know from what organizations this committee represents, it is even more important to recognize that this committee has the authority to work with NGOs, i.e. radical environmental groups who could care less about the United States of America and have proven time and again that this is true. Membership to the US/ICOMOS is 500 strong I have been told but not able to confirm and made up mostly of non governmental environmental groups. What possibly could go wrong?

What has gone wrong is that the scope of what one might think began with only a mere administration of a committee to work with the World Heritage Convention, has actually grown so large in size with seemingly no end to it, that it is little wonder the Endangered Species Act is often considered the most powerful law on America’s books and has become an implement to destroy this sovereign nation. Is this all by chance or by design?

As you can easily see, research into the connections of groups and individuals associated with representatives of the Federal World Heritage panel is mind boggling. There is no end to the power that exists that begins with one person or one group, nominating a piece of land, a building, a scenic vista, a museum, habitat to protect anything, environmental interests, and it can end with implementation of the most crippling and destruction law that exists in America today, foisted onto us by International powers. Is this the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers?

Most will say that even though all the elements are in place to allow authority of UNESCO over us, this has not and will not happen. Won’t it? Hasn’t it already, at least to some degree? After all, a treaty signed is the “supreme law of the land”. The power is there. The process exists. It has yet to become necessary to exert that full authority because a satisfactory level of incremental steps toward cessation are enough to satisfy UNESCO……….for now.

So who really controls the UNESCO and how deeply rooted into UNESCO are the 8 representative organizations or their representatives to the US/ICOMOS?

Please read, “The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act – Part I, Part II, Part III.

Tom Remington

Infolinks 2013