The new catch-phrase - "bio-diversity" involves protecting (so-called) endangered species at the expense of people, their lands and livelihoods, in order to "save the planet" (while still spreading GM contaminants.)

Vast tracts of land will be no-go areas, no walking, hunting, fishing, planting, no nothing, just special environments, bought up by the Rothschilds and Windsors.

As for "climate change" - that's got little to do with pollution, and everything to do with weather control.

When will it sink in, World Leaders don't want to save lives!! They want human population reduced to 300,000 million slaves, for their bio-diverse millionaire's playground.

Hmmmm
One word for you if you are going to post allegations like the above - evidence!
(And not David Icke, Bill Cooper or nazi fruitcakes websites - evidence)
We would all love to be able to pin any of what you suggest on the ruling class - but unsubstantiated shock statements aren't going to get any of us very far are they?
And if you can't find/point us to any evidence then why play the game which comes in a box labelled "Disinformation"?

EXPLANATION OF THE BIODIVERSITY TREATY AND THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
This map is based on the strategy and procedures laid out in what is known as the Wildlands Project and the UN/US Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB). Both are based on the need of protecting biological diversity using core wilderness reserves and inteconnecting wilderness corridors which are surrounded by buffer zones that variably regulate human activity to protect the attributes of the core reserves (see below). Areas not included in core reserves or buffer zones are zones of cooperation where regulations are designed to favor biodiversity and ecosystems.

The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, The Seville Agreement for the MAB Program, and the Strategic Plan for the USMAB all state the MAB Program is designed to help implement the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty currently before the US Senate for ratification. Likewise, Section 13.4.2.2.3 of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment defines the Wildlands Project as the basis for preserving biodiversity for the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Wildlands Project is based the concept of using wilderness reserves and corridors to protect biological diversity, which in turn is based on the science of conservation biology. The Wildlands Project was developed by Dr. Michael Soulé, co-founder and first president of the Society for Conservation Biology; Dr. Reed Noss, current editor for the journal of Conservation Biology; and David Foreman, co-founder and long-time leader of Earth First! and now a Director for the Sierra Club. Two of the biggest funders of the Wildlands Project are the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club.

The science of conservation biology was largely created by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature, now called the World Conservation Union) and is based on the pantheistic (nature is god) premis that nature took millennia to create her perfect ecosystems and management practices must follow natural ecosystems to be healthy. The IUCN is an accredited UN advisor and is comprised of government agencies and NGOs (non-governmental organizations). These include the EPA, US Forest Service, US National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Society for Conservation Biology, and many others. The IUCN is also one of the primary promoters and developers of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This perhaps explains why federal agencies and environmental organizations appear to be working in concert to implement the Wildlands Project and Biodiversity Treaty even though the treaty has not been ratified.

This map is drawn under the supervision of a Ph.D. in Ecology, and follows instructions provided by the Wildlands Project, the UN/US MAB, and the rapidly increasing control within US counties through the UN/US Heritage programs. This is especially true for counties having federal land, particularly in the Western US. The map incorporates, when available, actual maps as well as a multitude of government and environmental literature demanding various reserves or national parks interconnected with corridors.

MAGNITUDE OF THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
"Conservation must be practiced on a truly grand scale," claims Reed Noss. And grand it is. Taken from the article "The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy" in the 1992 special issue of Wild Earth, Noss provides the whopping dimensions of this effort.

Core reserves are wilderness areas that supposedly allow biodiversity to flourish. "It is estimated," claims Noss, "that large carnivores and ungulates require reserves on the scale of 2.5 to 25 million acres. . . . For a minimum viable population of 1000 [large mammals], the figures would be 242 million acres for grizzly bears, 200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves. Core reserves should be managed as roadless areas (wilderness). All roads should be permanently closed."

Corridors are "extensions of reserves. . . . Multiple corridors interconnecting a network of core reserves provide functional redundancy and mitigate against disturbance. . . . Corridors several miles wide are needed if the objective is to maintain resident populations of large carnivores."

Buffer zones should have two or more zones "so that a gradation of use intensity exists from the core reserve to the developed landscape. Inner zones should have low road density (no more than 0.5 mile/square mile) and low-intensity use such as. . .hiking, cross-country skiing, birding, primitive camping, wilderness hunting and fishing, and low-intensity silviculture (light selective cutting)."

WHAT DO RESERVES AND CORRIDORS REALLY MEAN?
While this effort has a noble mission, the implications are staggering. As noted in the June 25, 1993 issue of Science, it "is nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas."

According to the Wildlands Project, "One half of the land area of the 48 conterminous [united] states be encompassed in core [wilderness] reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone." (Noss, 1992) If fully implemented, the Convention On Biological Diversity would have to displace millions of people through unacceptable regulations, nationalization of private land, and forcing people to move out of core reserve areas and inner buffer zones. It would seriously reduce the production of agriculture, forest, and mining products. In the process, millions of Americans could lose their jobs. In turn, the resulting scarce resources means the rest of us are going to pay double and triple for these products.

This may sound insane, but it's either being planned or implemented right now across America. Land is being condemned or zoned in reserves, corridors or buffer zones under a variety of names to reestablish or protect biodiversity and/or specific species. Should these quasi-religious theories and pseudo-science determine our future?

RESERVES & CORRIDORS DO NOT WORK
What science is really showing is that although there are problems with some species, there is no clear evidence that reserves and corridors work or are even needed:

"The theory has not been properly validated and the practical value of biogeographic principles for conservation remains unknown. . . . The theory provides no special insights relevant to conservation." Zimmerman, B.L. and R.O. Bierregaard. 1986. Journal of Biogeography 13:133-143.
The theory behind the need for reserves and corridors is being "increasingly heavily criticized. . .as inapplicable to most of nature, largely because local population extinction was not demonstrated." Simberloff, D. J. Farr, J. Cox, and D. Mehlman. 1992. "Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investment?" Conservation Biology 6(4):495.
"No unified theory combines genetic, demographic, and other forces threatening small populations, nor is their accord on the relative importance of these threats." Ibid.
"There are still few data, and many widely cited reports are unconvincing. . . . [The theory that reserves and corridors] "facilitate movement is now almost an article of faith." Ibid.
"Studies that have been frequently cited as illustrating corridor use for faunal movement, do not, in fact, provide clear evidence." Of those that do support the need for corridors, wooded fence rows are adequate for many species, while only a few require well vegetated strips. Hobbs, R.J. 1992. "The Role of Corridors in Conservation: Solution or Bandwagon?" Tree 7(11):389.

The science used in the Convention on Biological Diversity does not work and the theology of creating wilderness-like reserves may actually reduce biodiversity. Rather, good forest management, even including the use of clearcutting, enhances biodiversity and sustainability. In one of the largest Neotropical migratory bird investigations to date was conducted in Maine and concluded that,

"...regional avian diversity is likely enhanced by industrial forest practices that maintain a variety of successional stages of forest." Hagan, John and Bently Wigley. 1992. Migrant Landbirds in an Extensive Industrial Forest Landscape. 1992 Final Report. Manomet Bird Observaytory, Manomet, MA

In another study in New Hampshire, managed stands having small clearcuts supported every one of the 33 species of avian species found in comparable reserves where no harvesting had occurred for over 100 years. Not only did the managed stands have all the species found in the wilderness reserves, they had an additional 20 species not found in the reserves, 11 of which were declining in the region! (Welsh, Christopher, and William M. Healy. 1993. "Effect of Even-aged Timber Managment on Bird Species Diversity and Composition in the Northern Hardwood of New Hampshire. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:143-154.) Stand structure and landscape diversity are by far the dominant factors in determining most species sustainability, not the age or how "natural" the forest may be compared to pre-settlement conditions. In the Maine study,

"The most obvious result of industrial forestry is the ongoing creation of large amounts of early-succssional (immature) and medium-age habitat relative to more mature natural forest regimes. Therefore, abundances of early-successional species increase and abundances of late-successional species decrease in the landscape. This process leads to greater equitability of early-and late-successional species, and therefore, mathematically, increases avian diversity at the landscape scale, if no species are lost in the process. Many species that prefer early-successional habitats are Neotropical migrants.... These species have benefited from industrial forestry, yet they also are species of concern because of either regional or continental-scaled population declines." (John Hagan. 1996. Diversity and Abundance of Landbirds in a Northeastern Industrial Forest Landscape. Special Report to NCASI. Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, MA 02345 pp 2)

Wilderness-like reserves favor only late successional species, and as such, will cause the decline of biological diversity as early-successional species decline as the habitat matures. Yet, this is exactly what the Convention on Biological Diversity is designed to do! It is based upon pantheistic theology, not hard science. As such the implications are enormous and must be thoroughly reviewed before the treaty is considered for ratification.