Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter One :: The International Park Is Coming
What would you do if the Environmental Protection Agency or the Bureau of Land Management served papers on you to cease and desist from normal daily activities at your residence? What if they told you to leave your home? Lest you think that you merely have to wave the Constitution in their face, remember how well it protected Randy Weaver and David Koresh.
Our society has already witnessed severe restrictions and confiscation of private property through wetland policies, public trust, customary right, reserved water rights, etc. Many industries have deteriorated or shut down altogether due to overweening environmental policies. Ask any logger or miner how they feel about the prospects of leaving a lifelong investment in time and equipment to face an uncertain future of extended unemployment benefits and job retraining. How well do you think they welcome the prospect of becoming tour guides for an ecological park?
These restrictions and takings did not come upon us at once. We did not wake up one day and suddenly find the American flag lying on the ground and our rights tossed in the trash. This has been a slow but steady process that has been built one step, one regulation and one court decision at a time.
The international park is not going to be a pleasant place to visit nor will we witness the baby grizzlies frolicking in the meadows. The park is a dangerous usurpation of our Constitution. For it will trample our national sovereignty, rob us of our private property and eliminate free enterprise.
Nationalizing Parks in America
The first national park established in the United States was the Yellowstone National Park. Congress made the park official by statute in 1872.
Steven Mather, a conservationist who was influential in the establishment of the National Park Service, served as the first Director of that bureaucracy from 1917 to 1929. Congress created this agency on 25 August 1916. From a small mustard seed a great tree grows. Today, that agency oversees the operation of over 340 parks, monuments, historical sites, memorials, recreation areas, preserves, military areas and cemeteries.
Because the powers of the Congress are clearly enumerated, it is a stretch of the Constitution[1] for the Congress to set aside State lands. Article 1, section 8.17 clearly outlines the limited authority of Congress to set aside any lands for federal use, and prescribes the necessity of the respective States to willingly cede that land.[2] The establishment of national parks within and transcending State borders is a clear violation of the ninth[3] and tenth[4] amendments. These two amendments reserve all rights, that are not specifically granted to the federal government, for the States and the people.
Congress took lands for national parks by de facto[5] authority, irrespective of constitutional limitations. In 1906, they decided to share their expropriated powers with the executive branch. They authorized the President to set aside lands and objects of historical or scientific significance by mere proclamation when they passed the Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities.[6] Now two branches of our civil government have the legal ability to set aside lands, public and private, while never possessing the constitutional authority to do so.
The judicial branch of our government was designed to be the tangential check and balance of the executive and legislative branches. It is, however, running in tandem with the other two. It tends to affirm their schemes, rather than restrain them within the scope of their granted powers.
The law professor, Laurence Tribe, in his book, American Constitutional Law,[7] points out that the Supreme Court has systematically rejected a narrow interpretation of article 1, section 8. He cites two early cases that ascribe to Congress "the power of eminent domain as an inherent 'attribute of sovereignty'[8] or as 'the offspring of political necessity.'"[9] It is important for us to understand that both of these decisions were rendered after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. This amendment laid the foundation for national government jurisdiction over the person and property of the individual.
North Cascades National Park
In 1957, members of the Mountaineers got together and formed the North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC). Their focus was on the establishment of the North Cascades National Park and the surrounding Wilderness and Recreation Areas. According to Pat Goldworthy, co founder of NCCC, who is also working toward the endowment of the North Cascades International Park:
[We] felt for a long time that we didn't need to stop our thinking at the border. We were thinking internationally even when the [national] park was first formed. We had input from our Canadian counterparts from the very beginning.[10]
This group was instrumental in the delay of the construction of the Ross Dam and led the effort to halt the construction of the High Ross Dam.[11] They also worked with the United States and Canada to form the Environmental Endowment Fund. The goal of this fund has been to facilitate the efforts of non-governmental organizations[12] working to establish the international parks. The fund was chartered in 1984, with the signing of the Ross Dam Treaty. The treaty itself, in Section 11, laid the foundation for the formation of the North Cascades International Park.[13] Since that time the NCCC has formed an alliance with thirteen additional environmental groups from the United States and Canada. This consortium is called the Cascades International Alliance.[14] Their main purpose is "to protect the North Cascades ecosystem through the establishment of a Cascades International Park and Reserve."[15]
International Cooperation
The objective of the North Cascades International Park (NCIP) is to remove our national, or political borders. One prominent NGO working diligently for the formation of the NCIP is the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA). Dale Crane, the Northwest Regional Director, calls for international peer pressure and changes in science and economics to make the sale of the international park acceptable to the public.
International cooperation combined with the cutting edge of conservation biology and economic theory proved to be a successful formula for creating the launching pad for international ecosystem protection in the North Cascades.[16]
What started as a small movement in 1872, the national parks movement had grown world wide by 1959. That year the United Nations requested the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) to compile and track the United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Resources. They established an international commission of experts to:
- Set standards
- Publish data
- Aid countries in planning, developing and managing national parks
Robert Standish, Editor Emeritus of Parks magazine, explains how this international committee has been able to create the needed peer pressure to coerce sovereign nations to relinquish their authority to the United Nations.
Their work resulted in encouraging countries all over the world to set aside and protect the 'crown jewels' among their natural treasures as national parks. . . . Because of the growth and importance of national parks throughout the world, the IUCN has reorganized and strengthened its programs dealing with the world's national parks and related areas.[17]
Maybe we can presume that the UN established this committee of international experts to aid the nations with managing their natural resources. Even if they are innocent of any conspiratorial intent, a couple of issues beg attention.
The first issue deals with coercion. It is rare that the United Nations will allow individual nations to option out of their 'development' programs. The international park will be a coercive program, involving compliance with international land use policies.
The United States will have to abide by the ruling of a Canadian bureaucracy. John Cuthbert, Chief Forester, Ministry of Forests, claimed that areas within the international park will have to work within the processes developed within British Columbia's Protected Area Strategy.[18] Paul Pritchard, President of NPCA, made it clear that we are not talking about setting up any options or flexibility. Furthermore, our international park will set the precedent for the entire world:
Unlike existing international parks on the North American continent, this park will have legislative mandates setting forth specific ecosystem based management objectives and coordinated methods for achieving them. The idea of a park and "special management area" cooperatively managed by different agencies to support a common objective sets a precedent that will establish the pace for ecosystem protection worldwide.[19]
The second issue deals with law. Every nation establishes their laws with unique traditional, cultural and religious principles. Some nations respect private property but many do not. Some nations value independent enterprise, some nations franchise all industry and others directly control or own the businesses.
The diversity of the international community holds such dichotomies of opinion. Why would a free nation, such as the United States, subject our laws to a fascist, or socialist authority? How is it possible to enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless the strong man is tied up first?[20] If we fall for this tyrannical land grab, we will neuter our Constitution, along with the rights and freedoms associated with it.
Furthermore, we will find ourselves living under an international agenda of socialistic population and resource allocation. The socialist environmentalist has no respect for the laws of the United States. They see our laws, the source of our freedom, as a threat to the 'ecosystem.'[21] So they will continue to assault us with crisis after crisis until we agree to submit to the slavery and tyranny that these other nations hold in common.
The biological integrity of the North Cascades is divided by a patchwork of jurisdiction, management priorities and laws so that the entire ecosystem is at risk.[22]
North Cascades International Park
The North Cascades International Park covers approximately twenty percent of the State of Washington and a small portion of British Columbia. Roughly eighty percent of the park is contained within Washington's borders, while Canada contributes twenty percent of the land. "The greater North Cascades ecosystem stretches from tide water [Puget Sound] on the west to the dry Okanogan River Valley [Hwy 97 and the Columbia River] on the east; from Washington's Snoqualmie Pass on the south to the Canadian Similkameen and Fraser Rivers along its northern extent."[23]
The park embraces the entire business and population centers along the Interstate 5 highway corridor from Everett to Vancouver, along with many medium sized cities, small towns and communities. According to the Cascades International Alliance, there are more than five million people living within the population strip along Puget Sound and Georgia Strait.[24]
Because this is a significant area the impact of this park upon human population will be devastating. At first, we will see more regulation of the rural areas. Then the few who remain after that will be driven out. What is at stake is our right to live where we chose, own property and make use of it. If the American people understood this upfront, they would never allow it to happen. That is why the promoters must lull us into a false sense of security by making us believe that only federal lands are affected. They claim that private property will be safe from international intrusion.
Although no boundaries have been drawn, the proposal will not include privately owned lands. Only federal lands will be considered.[25]
To arrive at the desired consensus to bring the park into broad acceptance, the promoters work like seasoned politicians, mitigating every concern. However, they cannot make real guarantees and it is likely that every promise will be broken through no fault of their own. Ensuing legislation and court precedent are out of the promoters' control. This aspect aside, your definition of private property is much different from theirs. We will talk about this later.
"Nature Has No Borders," the Conference
The University of Washington hosted the conference, "Nature Has No Borders,"[26] from 25 to 27 March 1994. It was co sponsored by the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), University of Washington's Canadian Studies Center at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies and the United States National Park Service. The Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, which is the fiduciary agency for the Environmental Endowment Fund, made the conference possible by a grant.
Due to widespread protests and on campus picketing Dr. William Gerberding, President of the University of Washington, along with Senator Patty Murray[27] and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt withdrew from addressing the convention.
The featured speakers at the conference were Steven Owen, Commissioner, (BC) Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), who spoke at the Friday evening dinner. Rep. Bruce Vento,[28] Chairman of the (US) House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, spoke at the Saturday evening dinner. "Both speakers heralded conference attendees for their vision and contributions to open dialogue in ecosystem protection and land use management."[29] The Saturday lunch speaker was Hon. Clifford Lincoln, M.P. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister. The title of his speech was Protecting the Ecosystem: An International Challenge.
There were several workshops presented. This listing was assembled from the conference program and a review of the conference published in the Cascades International Alliance's newsletter, Nature Has No Borders.
The Case for Ecosystem Management.
- Dr. James Karr, Director, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington.
- Dennis Demarchi, Habitat Classification Specialist, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
- Dr. Kenneth Lertzman, Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.
- Andy McKinnon, Manager, Forest Ecology Research, Ministry of Forests.
- Moderator: Dr. Tom Perry, Member Legislative Assembly for British Columbia.
Socio Economic Costs and Benefits of Ecosystem Protection.
- Valerie Buchanan, Director of Economic Development, Fraser/Cheam Regional District.[30]
- Dr. Gundars Rudzitis, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Idaho.[31]
- Moderator: Dr. Dave Fluharty, Research Associate Professor, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington.
Sustaining the Cascades Ecosystem.
- Evan Frost, Conservation biologist, Greater Ecosystem Alliance.[32]
- Dennis O'Gorman, Deputy commissioner, CORE.
- Moderator: Dr. David Thorud, Dean, College of Forestry Resources, University of Washington.
The Changing Natural Resource Economy.
- Dr. Jack Knetsch, Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.[33]
- Dr. Thomas Power, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Montana.[34]
- Moderator: Dr. David Brower, Chairman, Earth Island Institute.
Tourism Industry in the Northwest.
- Dr. John Hunt, Department of Resource, Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho.
- Dr. Peter Murphy, School of Business, University of Victoria.
- Moderator: Bernard Gagosz, Consul General, Canadian Consulate General.
Cultural Resources of the Northern Cascades First Nations.
- Doreen Maloney, Chairperson, Skagit Systems Cooperative.[35]
- Larry Commadore, Consular, Soowahlie Band Council, Sto Lo Nation.[36]
- Bob Pasco Chief, Nlaka' pamux Nation.[37]
- Moderator: Dr. Rachel Nugent, Chair, Department of Economics, Pacific Lutheran University.
Ecological Management of Forest Lands.
- John Cuthbert, Chief Forester, Ministry of Forests, who described British Columbia's Protected Area Strategy (PAS).
- Zane Smith, Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region, US Forest Service (retired).[38]
- Moderator: Russ Hughes, Regional Staff Manager, Integrated Resources, Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Forest Region.
Management of International Park Lands.
- Sandra Davis, Acting Regional Director, Canadian Heritage, Alberta Region.
- Jack Neckels, Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, National Park Service.
- Moderator: William Chandler, Director, Conservation Programs, National Parks and Conservation Association.
A Protection Proposal for the Northern Cascades.
- Jake Masselink, Assistant Deputy Minister Parks Division, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.[39]
- Paul Pritchard, President, NPCA.[40]
- John Reynolds, Deputy Director, National Park Service.[41]
- Moderator Bill Paleck, Superintendent, North Cascades National Park Service Complex.
Where To Now.
- Irving Fox, Professor Emeritus, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia.[42]
- Emory Bundy, Director, Bullitt Foundation (King5 News affiliation, Seattle).[43]
- Moderator: Cleve Pinnix, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.
Other notable speakers presented papers of economic and ecological research of the North Cascades supporting international land management on an ecosystem basis. George Frampton, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, brought Bruce Babbitt's support for the formation of an international park. He cited three areas where "ecosystem based land management policies are already working."[44] Dan Evans, Sen. Patty Murray's State Director, brought her comments by way of video. She clearly stated her support of the park;[45]
Future Parks
On 04 October 1993, the Board of County Commissioners, Skagit County, Washington, voted and passed unanimously Resolution #15035. The resolution was titled "Support For An International Park Across the United States Canadian Border, In Washington and British Columbia." This is the first legislative arm of our government to officially recognize the park.
The promoters have proposed another park after the establishment of the North Cascades International Park. It will be the Columbia Mountains International Park. This park continues from the NCIP across the top third of Washington State and over portions of Idaho and Montana. Thus the whole upper Washington State region will fall into international jurisdiction, namely the United Nations. After these regions are adopted, the Olympic Mountains, Puget Lowlands, Central Cascades, and Columbia Basins Parks will swallow up the remaining portions of Washington State. These also, while wholly contained within our State, will be under United Nations supervision because of international environmental treaties.
Footnotes:
[1]The Constitution of the United States, refer to art. 1, sec. 8 for the powers enumerated toward Congress.
[2]Later, in this book, we will discuss specific strategies that Congress has employed to get around these constitutional limitations. We will also look at judicial decisions that have helped to form de facto government.
[3]The Constitution of the United States, amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
[4]The Constitution of the United States, amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[5]De facto means that something exists, in fact, irrespective of legality or legitimacy. On the other hand, de jure means that something exists in full accord of the law.
[6]The New Book of Knowledge (1991 ed.), Grolier Inc., vol. 13, p. 43.
[7]Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., The Foundation Press, (1988), p. 328.
[8]Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co v Patterson, 98 US 403, 406 (1879).
[9]Kohl v US, 91 US 367, 371 (1876).
[10]Sean Cosgrove, "NCCC: Almost 40 years of Conservation History and Still Going," Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter for the Cascades International Alliance, Canadian EarthCare Society, (Summer 1994), Vol. 1, Issue 2.
[11]id.
[12]Non-government organizations are known as NGOs. This is often a misnomer, as most NGOs receive government funding (taxpayer money) and many work cooperatively with bureaucracies to establish policies and regulations. NGOs are the visible and powerfully influential arm of what could be called the 'shadow government.'
[13]Paul Pritchard, President of the NPCA, speech given at the "Nature Has No Borders Conference" (25 Mar 94).
[14]The seven United States members of the Cascades International Alliance are: Greater Ecosystem Alliance, Columbia River Bioregional Education Project (Columbiana), National Parks & Conservation Association (NPCA), North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC), North Cascades Institute, Skagit Audubon Society and The Wilderness Society. The seven Canadian members are: Canadian EarthCare Society, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Okanogan Similkameen Parks Society, Sierra Club of Western Canada, Steelhead Society of British Columbia, Thompson Institute For Environmental Studies and Western Canada Wilderness Committee.
[15]Cascades International Alliance, "Nature Has No Borders," brochure, published by National Parks and Conservation Association (11/93).
[16]Dale Crane, from a speech at the "Nature Has No Borders" conference.
[17]Robert I. Standish, "National Parks Around the World," op. cit., The New Book of Knowledge (1991 ed.), vol. 13, p. 56 57.
[18]Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter for the Cascades International Alliance, Vol. 1, Issue 2 (Summer 1994).
[19]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[20]Matthew 12:29.
[21]"ECOSYSTEM: A self sustaining community of interrelated plants and animals living in a physical environment that supplies the food, water, and other raw materials needed to sustain life. Because all the members of an ecosystem are interdependent damage to one species or a change in some aspect of the physical environment can upset the balance of the entire system. The 'greater ecosystem' concept is based on an ecosystem of a large enough area to sustain all of its species and natural functions." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[22]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[23]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure. [Brackets added].
[24]id.
[25]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[26]Unless otherwise noted, all references to "the conference" from this point forward mean the "Nature Has No Borders" conference (25 Mar 1994) held at the University of Washington.
[27]Although Sen. Murray did not speak to the conference directly, her State Director, Dan Evans, presented a video taping of her remarks.
[28]D MN; Democratic Farmer Labor Party.
[29]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[30]". . .linked changes in the socioeconomic makeup to population growth." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[31]"As more people move to these areas for non economic reasons, a stronger, more diverse economy will result." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[32]". . .detailing the importance of remaining wildlife habitat in the North Cascades and the effect of unrestrained development on the diverse species of the ecosystem. . . . presented a detailed plan for biodiversity protection" op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[33]". . .presented findings that discredited conventional economic analysis of land use. . . . The value of a landscape is much more than the material worth of extracted resources." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[34]"Protecting environmental quality protects our economic vitality." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[35]". . .supported ecosystem management standards that provide full protection of natural resources and access for Native peoples." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[36]". . .gave an impassioned account of Native spiritual practices." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[37]". . .emphasized the importance of protecting traditional spiritual sites." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[38]". . .spoke on the need for ecologically sustainable forestry. 'Let the output of land management be stewardship.'" op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[39]". . .called for the participation of all concerned parties government, First Nations, and the general public in planning ecosystem management of the North Cascades." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[40]"He proposed three objectives: 1) designation of an international park, 2) creation of special management areas around the park. . . . and 3) aid to local communities in transition from extraction based economy to alternative sustainable economies." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[41]He pleaded for cooperation to "rededicate ourselves to the interdependence of all of us and our interdependence in the finite reality of our lovely, delightful planet, our home." ed. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[42]". . .emphasized the importance of public involvement in the planning and implementation of public land use management policy. He warned against transnational corporate interests substituting for the interests of citizens and indigenous people in creation of public land use policy." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[43]". . .closed the conference stating that the wisest investment humans can make is 'an investment in all the species that we know nothing about.'" op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[44]I called his office several times, but was unable to talk with him. The people I did talk to were not able to cite these three areas, or produce a working paper on this subject.
[45]The international park is antithetical to our national sovereignty and to the Constitution which she swore to uphold. Why is she so excited about the park?