Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of Impact of Sex & War blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Feds v Public Lands Welfare Cowboys Food Aid to Enable US & EU Colonisation by Immigration



Feds v Public Lands Welfare Cowboys who Breed Third World Immigration


Wing-tipped Welfare Cowboys Ride the -- Public Lands -- Range killing Keystone Species - such as black tailed prairie dogs - biodiversity and destroying natural capital; creating surplus food production for humans, sent to overpopulated Third World to breed lots of poverty stricken immigrants ready to colonize America and Europe....






Nevada rancher threatens 'range war' if feds
don't let him continue grazing his cattle for free


A Nevada rancher has threatened a "range war" over illegal cattle grazing on public lands.

Federal authorities rounded up as many as 900 cattle owned by Cliven Bundy, who denies the U.S. government owns the Mojave Desert land where his livestock has been grazing for decades.

Budy stopped paying the Bureau of Land Management a token fee in 1993 required of ranchers who graze livestock on public lands after he refused to accept a new land-use rules to protect the threatened desert tortoise.

Environmentalists say his cattle have degraded the Gold Butte landscape and argue the rancher has interfered with ecological restoration efforts.

"Mr Bundy has long falsely believed that Gold Butte is his ranch," said Terri Robertson, president of an environmental preservation group. "We all know that is not the reality, and it is time for him to obey the law."

Bundy claims he owns only 500 cattle, although federal authorities say the rancher has allowed up to 1,000 to illegally graze on the land. Federal authorities had intended to remove the ranchers cattle in 2012, but that was postponed after Bundy threatened violence toward government employees.

The rancher's grazing permit was revoked in 1998, five years after he stopped paying his fees, and Clark County, Nev. bought out his permit and retired it permanently to protect the desert tortoise.

Bundy said his family's history of land use -- stretching back to 1877 -- trumps federal government authority, and armed supporters have trickled into the area to set up a possible showdown with authorities.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the Bureau of Land Management for failure to remove the rancher's cattle despite two court orders that the livestock be confiscated.

The Nevada Cattlemen's Association said it was concerned about how the cattle confiscation was resolved, but noted that the organization supports effective range management and cooperation among agencies to conserve wildlife.

The organization said it would not interfere with the ongoing roundup.

» » » » [Raw Story]



Western Wildlife Under Hoof:
Public Lands Livestock Grazing Threatens Iconic Species


Livestock grazing is permitted on federal lands managed by ten federal departments and agencies, ranging from the Departent of Defense to the Department of Energy to the National Park Service. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service manage the most livestock on the most public land.

In FY 2006, the BLM administered 17,880 grazing permits and leases for 15,799 livestock operators to graze almost 13 million animal unit months (AUMs)* on 157 million acres of public land.

The Forest Service authorized 7,039 operators to graze almost 7 million AUMs on 93 million acres of public land in FY 2005. There were more than 8,000 grazing permits on Forest Service lands in 2008.

* Grazing use is authorized and measured by animal unit months, which is the amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow and one calf, or 5 sheep or goats, for one month.

Our analyses of GIS data found that:

• Grazing is permitted on approximately 80 percent of public land in the historic range of many trout species and subspecies, likely contributing to the westwide decline of native trout.

• More than 70 percent of moderate and high quality habitat identified for northern aplomado falcon in New Mexico is on public land, and 57 percent of that area is permitted for grazing.

• More than half of Sonoran Desert tortoise estimated range in Arizona is on public land and more than half of that public land is permitted for grazing.

• Almost 2,600 grazing allotments are located in estimated gray wolf current range in the northern Rocky Mountains.

• All but a few thousand acres of the Mexican wolf recovery area is on federal public land and 82% of that area is permitted for grazing.


• Grazing is permitted on:

61% of black-tailed prairie dog historic range on public land

78% of Gunnison’s prairie dog historic range on public land

91% of white-tailed prairie dog historic range on public land

93% of Utah prairie dog historic range on public land

• Active grazing allotments comprise:

91% of greater sage-grouse current range on public land

84% of Gunnison sage-grouse current range on public land

» » » » [Wild Life Guardians: Western Wildlife Under Hoof (PDF)]



Fiscal Costs of Public Lands Grazing

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported the federal government spends at least $144 million annually managing private livestock grazing on federal public lands, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year.

The GAO admited its report is incomplete because several agencies, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, which spend millions of dollars mitigating grazing effects such as soil erosion, weed incursion, and water pollution, did not provide estimates of their grazing related costs to the GAO. Other programs that benefit both private and public lands ranchers, such as the “Livestock Compensation Program,” were also not included in the total subsidy to public lands ranchers.

Considering the additional direct and indirect costs not included in the GAO report, economists have estimated that the federal public lands grazing on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands may cost as much as $500 million to $1 billion annually.

“Given the massive budget shortfalls our country faces, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to graze public lands at public expense,” said Mark Salvo, Director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians and one of the primary authors of the petition. “As long as grazing is permitted on public lands, it’s only fair that public lands ranchers pay for the cost of their activity.”

Grazing fees have not kept pace with inflation or with comparable grazing leases on state and private land. The 2010 grazing fee was just $1.35 per cow per month, the fourth year in a row that the fee was set at its lowest legal limit. The 2011 fee will be announced at the end of January.

The groups will be exploring all options including litigation to address the government’s decision today to take no action.

A copy of the 2005 fee petition to Reform Public Lands Grazing Fee can be found here.
A copy of the legal complaint against the government can be found here.
A copy of the Department of Agriculture’s response can be found here.
A copy of the Department of the Interior’s response can be found here.
A copy of the 2005 Government Accountability Office report can be found here.

» » » » [Wild Earth Guardians]



Wing-tipped Welfare Cowboys Ride the Range


Politicians and ranching industry groups, claiming that changes in federal grazing policy will hurt small "mom and Pop' ranchers, are playing loose with the facts. The majority of public land grazing is controlled by a few wealthy individuals and corporations.

Resistance Radio – John Horning – 01/12/14:
John Horning is executive director of Wild Earth Guardians. John Horning is executive director of Wild Earth Guardians. Their mission statement reads: “We believe in nature’s right to exist and thrive. We act on this belief with compassion and courage by preserving the wild world. We defend wildness, empower life, end injustice, and stand for healthy, sustainable ecosystems and human communities. We embrace conflict, and cooperate without compromising our values. We execute the campaigns strategically and decisively, we mobilize, inform and inspire others, and we work to heal wounded landscapes. Our enduring and fierce advocacy leads us to success. We are A FORCE FOR NATURE.”He is grateful to live in New Mexico and feels privileged to be a voice for the voiceless.

Resistance Radio – Bethany Cotton – 03/16/14:
Bethany Cotton is the Wildlife Program Director for WildEarth Guardians. Guardians works to protect and restore wildlife, wild places and wild rivers in the American west. A native Cascadian, Bethany now calls the Southern Rockies home.

» » » » [Wild Earth Guardians :: John Horning :: Bethany Cotton]



We Have Met the Enemy; It is Us:
“Feeding the World's Hungry Millions: How It Will Mean Billions for U.S. Business.”


The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War: ... Resource scarcity will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war.... Gross overpopulation will destroy fragile possibilities for progress in much of the non-Western world, and much of this problem is the West's fault....

Food for Peace / [Food Aid to Enable Our own Colonisation by Immigration]: Following World War II, U.S. agricultural surpluses reached alarming levels, and storage of excess grain cost the government millions of dollars per year--even as the food deteriorated and became inedible. A solution had to be found, and in 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act into law.

The program, known as Public Law 480, benefited the U.S. by decreasing food surpluses and by creating new markets for its agricultural products....

Living in a Lifeboat: ..... Our experience with Public Law 480 clearly reveals the answer. This was the law that moved billions of dollars worth of U.S. grain to food-short, population-long countries during the past two decades. When P. L. 480 first came into being, a headline in the business magazine Forbes (Paddock and Paddock 1970) revealed the power behind it: "Feeding the World's Hungry Millions: How It Will Mean Billions for U.S. Business."

And indeed it did. In the years 1960 to 1970 a total of $7.9 billion was spent on the "Food for Peace" program, as P. L. 480 was called. During the years 1948 to 1970 an additional $49.9 billion were extracted from American taxpayers to pay for other economic aid programs, some of which went for food and food-producing machinery. (This figure does not include military aid.) That P. L. 480 was a give-away program was concealed. Recipient countries went through the motions of paying for P. L. 480 food -with IOUs. In December 1973 the charade was brought to an end as far as India was concerned when the United States "forgave" India's $3.2 billion debt (Anonymous 1974). Public announcement of the cancellation of the debt was delayed for two months; one wonders why.

"Famine-1975!" (Paddock and Paddock 1970) is one of the few publications that points out the commercial roots of this humanitarian attempt. Though all U.S. taxpayers lost by P. L. 480, special interest groups gained handsomely. Farmers benefited because they were not asked to contribute the grain -it was bought from them by the taxpayers. Besides the direct benefit there was the indirect effect of increasing demand and thus raising prices of farm products generally. The manufacturers of farm machinery, fertilizers, and pesticides benefited by the farmers extra efforts to grow more food. Grain elevators profited from storing the grain for varying lengths of time. Railroads made money hauling it to port, and shipping lines by carrying it overseas. Moreover, once the machinery for P. L. 480 was established, an immense bureaucracy had a vested interest in its continuance regardless of its merits.

Very little was ever heard of these selfish interests when P. L. 480 was defended in public. The emphasis was always on its humanitarian effects. The combination of multiple and relatively silent selfish interests with highly vocal humanitarian apologists constitutes a powerful lobby for extracting money from taxpayers. Foreign aid has become a habit that can apparently survive in the absence of any known justification.


» » » » [In Gods Name]


No comments:

HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]