Bugging out on foot is a risky proposition at best, and one to be avoided if possible.

Click here to view the original post.

Hello, my friend and welcome back!  There are a lot of Preppers who plan on bugging out on foot when the time comes.  Maybe it’s to get to their bug out location unnoticed, but…

The post Bugging out on foot is a risky proposition at best, and one to be avoided if possible. appeared first on American Preppers Online.

51 Items Most Preppers Forget to Add to Their BOBS

Click here to view the original post.

51 Items Most Preppers Forget to Add to Their BOBS If you’re relatively new to prepping and starting to gather supplies, you may be feeling somewhat overwhelmed. Don’t worry you are not alone. For the first two years that I was prepping, I felt like I really didn’t know what I was doing either. Other … Continue reading 51 Items Most Preppers Forget to Add to Their BOBS

The post 51 Items Most Preppers Forget to Add to Their BOBS appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.

A Comprehensive Bugout Strategy

Click here to view the original post.

I’ve written about bugging out in the past, it’s a popular concept with many relevant ties to everyday life and unfortunately it’s also a concept rooted in many prepper fantasies.  Realistic bugouts happen quite frequently due to localized natural disasters, folks have to leave their home with very little notice hoping that it will be there when they are allowed to return.  Forest fires, flooding or even chemical spills come to mind when considering the need to get out and quickly.  Many folks prepare for these scenarios and many do not, those who do not are usually the ones on television telling the news how all they could salvage was what they could grab in a few minutes.

I should dedicate at least one paragraph to the prepper bugout fantasy, the one where martial law is declared and the suburbanites pack up the pickup trucks and head to the woods to establish a community.  Crops are gown, shelters are built and the resistance war is waged in a glorious effort, something something et al.  It’s a good fantasy but not one grounded in reality, I’ll just leave it at that.

My Bugout Necessity

I’ve you’ve been following along recently you’ll know I’ve relocated to a pretty remote area of the country, one where fire is certainly the biggest threat to our existence.  Fire can happen quickly and when it’s dry, as it is now, it is a huge consideration which must be taken very seriously.  Evacuation (read: bugout) plans are standard in this part of the country and one must be ready to execute at a moment’s notice.

Time Sensitive Plans

In speaking with my wife we have determined that we should have layered plans in place which are all predicated on the amount of time available.  Certainly if we have a day to leave there are actions we would take and also items we would pack which would far exceed those determined necessary if we only had 5 minutes to leave.  The point is that we have gone through the home and identified those items and also the load plan (single or multiple vehicles) associated with taking various items.  Generally we lean towards irreplaceable things (photo albums, heirlooms) and vital documents as top priority and work our way down from there.  In a zero time available scenario its ourselves and the dogs, everything else can meet the fate of the flames.

Multiple Courses of Action

Our first choice would obviously be vehicle transport out of our location.  However there is truly only one way in and one way out, so if that is blocked moving on foot has to be an option.  We have scouted this possibiliy and included it in our plan and a second course of action should the road be blocked and impassable.  It is important to consider the highly unlikely and plan for it, never assume that because something has always been….that it always will be.

Off Site Storage Redundancy

I suggest this for everyone reading this post.  Have multiple sites away from your primary residence were you can store goods and supplies or vital docments.  We have a backup storage facility as well as a safe deposit box where we keep vital documents, never keep all of your eggs in one basket so to speak.  If we were away from the home and it all went up in flames we would have redundacy off site.  This is a crucial capability which ties in to continutity of operations.

General Preps

It should go without saying but there are some generalities that go with being prepared to bugout which transcend location.  A list of these follows, this is off the top of my head so it is not complete.

– Vehicles never parked without a minimum of 1/2 tank of fuel

– All family members briefed on bugout strategy

– Rehersals of bugout strategy

– Predetermined linkup or destination points

– Items identified and staged for quick loading

– Load plan (how you will pack) rehearsed and understood

– Multiple Egress points identified and understood

– Communication plan understood and rehearsed

The Bottom Line

The necessity for bugouts is a very real one and should not be overlooked.  Have a comprehensive bugout strategy which ties in more than one way to get it done.  Speak with your loved ones about it and conduct rehearsals, it could save your life one day.

 

The PREPARED Path Online Prepper Course

Click here to view the original post.

The PREPARED Path is an online, self-paced, comprehensive prepper course aimed at educating you on a variety of different self-reliance topics in twelve modules.

Here is an overview of each module:

The PREPARED Path Contents

  1. Water – Water procurement, storage, and treatment.
  2. Food Storage – A variety of food storage techniques including: using a vacuum food saver, dehydration, preserving meats, canning, bulk foods, and more.
  3. Sanitation and Hygiene – Sanitation, garbage, showering, laundry, dishes, and plenty more are dealt with.
  4. First Aid and Medical – From basic first aid (wounds and burns), pandemics, and medical kits, to using herbs, essential oils, and more.
  5. Safety and Security – General home safety is covered (e.g., fire safety, CO poisoning, etc), self-defense options, firearms, caches, NBC and EMP, etc.
  6. Heating and Cooling – An assortment of portable heaters and permanent heating are covered as well as some considerations for cooling.
  7. Cooking and Hot Water – Learn about camping stoves, makeshift stoves, Dutch oven cooking, and even solar cooking.
  8. Lighting – Candles, lanterns, flashlights, and solar-powered options.
  9. Communications – Learn about radios (weather alert, AM/FM, shortwave), CB radios, two-way radios, and even HAM radio.
  10. Power and Fuel – Batteries, the usual fuels (propane, gasoline, diesel), generators, solar, and more.
  11. Shelter and Clothing – You still need to know how to keep yourself warm and dry, both with clothing and how to care for your home.
  12. Everything Else – This is the rest of it, including money, precious metals, assorted tools, dependents, special needs individuals, and skills/knowledge preservation.

As an added bonus there are dozens of really nice documents that you can download.

  • 5 Evacuation Planning tools (e.g., design bug out kit, evacuation procedures, priority checklists, bug out)
  • 4 Disaster Readiness tools (e.g., disaster action planning, task tracking, fire escape plan)
  • 12 Best Practices tools (e.g., firearms, water and food, wildfires, communications, etc.)
  • 4 Food Planning tools (e.g., food storage calculator, food storage recipes database)

The amount of information in this course is really impressive. Damian over at reThinkSurvival.com spent a lot of time creating it. You can compile this information from a dozen different locations on the web, but I haven’t found another singularly comprehensive online resource like this anywhere. Well worth the cost of the course.

Below is image you can click to get to sign up for the course. It is an affiliate link, but know that I don’t promote a product that I don’t believe in. Please take a closer look at this course.

The PREPARED Path

If you found this article helpful/interesting, please Share it by clicking on the social media links. Thank you for helping us grow!

The post The PREPARED Path Online Prepper Course appeared first on Surviving Prepper.

Interactive Bug Out Bag List

Click here to view the original post.

Interactive Bug Out Bag List While you can purchase a premade bug out bag, creating a custom kit is the preferred option since it allows you to choose exactly what you want to pack in your bag. However, when assembling your kit you need to make sure not to overpack so that you remain mobile …

Continue reading »

The post Interactive Bug Out Bag List appeared first on SHTF & Prepping Central.

INCH Bag Survival Kit: Red Dawn Edition

Click here to view the original post.

Some of you are probably asking, “What in the world is an INCH bag?” Most survival sites focus on everyday carry bags and bug out bags, but it’s a good idea to have an INCH bag as well. It stands for, “I’m Never Coming Home.” An INCH bag is the ultimate end-of-the-world bag, the kind […]

The post INCH Bag Survival Kit: Red Dawn Edition appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

7 Tips For Bugging Out Faster

Click here to view the original post.

7 Tips For Bugging Out Faster If the SHTF no warning and you were forced to bug out, how long would it take you to get out of dodge? This is a very important question. You probably have lots of supplies you’d want to load into your bug out vehicle, but that takes time, and …

Continue reading »

The post 7 Tips For Bugging Out Faster appeared first on SHTF & Prepping Central.

Help Stop The Tax Hike On Solar Power. PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION.

Click here to view the original post.
Government ministers are about to approve a huge tax hike on solar panels that will have a devastating impact on the industry. Sign the petition to push back.

3 Ways To Bug Out When SHTF

Click here to view the original post.

Imagine a situation where the world is going into chaos for whatever reason – natural disaster, financial collapse, whatever.  Bugging in is just not an option because your dwelling is in immediate peril.  It’s time to bug out!  But you have to act fast. What do you do? Bugging out is going to be the beginning

Does the Travel John Work?

Click here to view the original post.

This post is by Bernie Carr, apartmentprepper.com My last post discussed possible alternatives for dealing with liquid waste while trying to bug out without having to stop.  We found the Travel John, a popular product among campers, online.  Before I recommend anything I always try out the item to make sure it works. What is the Travel John? It is a disposable urinal that is portable, is said to be leak proof, and odor free. The box came with 18 […]

The post Does the Travel John Work? appeared first on Apartment Prepper.

How To Build The Best Bug-Out Bag

Click here to view the original post.

Life can throw a lot of different situations at you in a hurry, situations you might never see coming. With the world in the state it’s in, it can be easy to get scared and start feeling like you need to be prepared for “the worst.” The secret to having some peace of mind is being prepared ahead of time for the unpredictable. Because the very worst that can happen is a disaster in which you are unable to care for yourself or the ones you love. That’s where having the best bug-out bag comes in handy.

Article Originally published by Kelli Warner

The best bug-out bag is ready when you need it and contains everything required for living away from civilization for at least 7-days. A bug-out bag assumes that there may come a time when, for whatever reason, you have to leave your home and not return for at least a few days. It also assumes that, should things be so bad that you have to leave your home, you won’t be able to drive down to the local Wal-Mart and stock up on everything you’ll be needing. So it’s important to spend some time ahead of the disaster, assessing your current situation and needs, as well as anticipating your needs down the road. Creating the best bug-out bag you can for your family

 

What Is A Bug Out Bag?

Several types of emergency preparedness kits are commonly referred to as a Bug Out Bag or BOB. Each serves a different, though sometimes similar, purpose in being prepared for whatever might come your way. An everyday carry kit contains emergency essentials that you keep on your person at all times. These are items that will help you survive emergency situations and daily challenges more easily. A get home bag is designed to do just what the name implies, to get you home. It contains more gear than you would carry on your person every day, and you would typically keep it at your office or in your car. A bug out bag is an emergency kit that provides everything you need to survive for up to a week without any outside contact or resources.

It may help to think of the three types of bags this way: In the event of a disaster, your everyday carry gear gets you from where you are to your get home bag. Your get home bag gets you to your bug out bag. And your bug out bag is designed to keep you safe for an extended period of time.

 

Identifying Your Needs

Different factors mean different needs. Things to consider when mapping out your bug out bag should include:

Where do you live? Living in a rural or urban environment will influence your needs during a survival situation. If you’re likely to face survival in a disaster-stricken inner city environment, you may require self-defense and demolition tools more than shelter and fire starting materials. However, most people will likely attempt to make it to a wilderness area to wait out whatever situation they’re getting away from.

 

Where would you go if your home were no longer safe? Planning ahead gives you the opportunity to get a feel for the land and map out various strengths and weaknesses. If you require a map for your chosen area, you’ll want to include one as you pack your bug out bag.

How will you get there? Depending on the type of disaster, there’s the possibility that you’d be on foot. You may need two destinations, one you can reach by car and another by foot. If you were able to “bug out” in your vehicle, all the better, but you want to pack your bug out bag with the thought that you’ll be carrying it a long way. Keeping that in mind will help you to make realistic weight limit decisions. You could always keep an extra bag of “nice to have” items close by to throw in the back of the truck or car if you can drive.

Who depends on you? Few people live in a vacuum. If disaster struck, who would look to you for help? Do you have children in the home? A spouse or partner you need to consider? Keep these people in mind when planning your bug out bag. Involve them in planning and have them, or help them, pack a bug out bag for themselves, as well.

Unique medical needs? Do you, or those you care for, have any unique medical needs that should be considered? Rescue medications like inhalers and Epi-pens should always have a priority place in any emergency preparedness.

Once you’ve identified your needs, along with the people who will need you, make a plan with your family or extended group. Choose an area where you’ll gather should the need arise. Each person should have prepared their own bug out bag and be able to get there independently. For parents with children, consider their age and capability when creating a family disaster plan.

What Should Go In The Best Bug Out Bag?

Water – the human body can only last up to 72 hours without water. You should plan for at least a liter of water, per day, per person. Carrying all that water may not be practical, but you should have at least some packaged water in your bag, as well as ways to sanitize water for future use. Water sanitation tablets or a simple filtration system can be the easiest and lightest to pack.

Food – You’ll want food you can eat now, and ways to get food in the future. Protein bars, MREs or other dehydrated meals, jerky are great. Canned goods may be considered, but they add weight and bulk. There are many pre-packaged emergency foods available commercially. When choosing food, remember to take into account any food allergies or severe sensitivities. One of the last things you want to deal with in the bush is a severe allergic reaction.

Food preparation – Don’t forget that you’ll have to prepare your food. Be sure to include things like:

Clothing – This is a variable component, depending on your personality, region, time of year, etc. Layering is the name of the game. Some suggestions:

  • Lightweight long sleeve shirt
  • At least one pair of long pants – you might consider “zip off” convertible pants
  • Hiking boots (on your feet) and an extra pair of shoes, if possible.
  • Underwear – a change or two, it’s up to you
  • Good socks – several pairs of moisture-wicking socks
  • Fleece jacket – medium weight jacket for layering
  • Hat with brim
  • Gloves – winter or work gloves
  • Poncho
  • Neck protection – A scarf or gator, for sun or cold

Shelter and Bed

  • Tarp – must have
  • Tent – optional
  • Sleeping Bag – must have
  • Ground pad – optional
  • Extra blanket – optional

Fire – You really can never have too many methods for starting a fire. Choose at least three to pack in your bug out bag:

Tinder – You’ll want to pack several types of tinder, just in case:

  • Cotton balls coated with Vaseline (keep them in a baggie, or they’ll make a mess)
  • Paper
  • Pine chips
  • Cedar shavings
  • Dryer lint
  • Commercial fire starters, there are many

First Aid – There are several very good first aid kits available commercially. If you want to put together your own, you’ll need at least:

  • Alcohol pads
  • Band aids
  • Bandages with tape
  • Antibiotic ointment
  • Vaseline
  • Sunscreen – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that
  • Insect repellent
  • Super glue for closing wounds
  • Medical needs – Inhalers, Epi-pens, blood pressure medications, etc.

Hygiene

  • Wet napkins
  • Hand sanitizer
  • All purpose camp soap (dish soap or bar soap, whichever you prefer, or both)
  • Mirror (hygiene and signaling)
  • Small towel and a cloth
  • Toilet paper (you’ll thank us later)
  • Toothbrush and toothpaste
  • Personal hygiene needs – deodorant, feminine hygiene products, a brush or comb, ponytail holders if you have long hair, etc.

Tools – It’s easy to get carried away when it comes to tools. Because it’s important to keep the overall weight and bulk down, you’ll want to choose combination tools whenever possible:

  • Survival knife – you may already have one as a part of your everyday carry gear, but make sure you have a backup.
  • Multi-tool – there are many on the market, get one that gives you the most bang for your buck.
  • Hatchet or machete – you won’t want to do everything with your knife, so taking something heavier makes sense.

Lighting – Always have at least primary and one backup light source:

  • Flashlight
  • LED lamp
  • Headlamp
  • Glow sticks
  • Candles
  • Extra batteries

Communication – Consider that your cell phone may not work in an emergency. You might want to have a short wave radio, or some other means of communication with you, as well.

Cash – Travel funds. It’s a good idea to have some cash, and perhaps some gold or silver bullion coins, as well.

Local Map – Even if you’re familiar with the area take a map. Not having one could be disastrous.

Compass – you may already have a compass combined with your analog watch. If you do not, include one in your bug out bag.

Notepad and pencil – This is a good place to keep important numbers and addresses. Without a cell phone, many of us wouldn’t remember a phone number to call if we got the chance.

Self-defense – The need for a bug out bag implies that you are trying to survive. Take with you the best means of self-defense that you have. Include non-lethal means, in addition to whatever weapon you might choose to carry: whistle, pepper spray, etc. If you carry a gun, take extra ammunition, 25 rounds minimum.

Misc. items – Make choices based on your abilities, lack of ability, carrying capacity, space, etc.:

  • Paracord – Must have – 50′ is a good start
  • Bandannas – several cotton bandannas will come in handy for a variety of uses.
  • Duct tape
  • Garbage bags – 55 gal contractor bags are best
  • Resealable bags – four or five, gallon and quart size
  • Sunglasses
  • Sewing kit
  • Fishing Kit
  • Binoculars
  • Face paint (optional)
  • Snare Wire

How to Choose

The fact is, unless your bug out bag is a camper hooked to a truck, you just can’t take everything. That would be camping and not bugging out at all. So at some point you’ll have to make choices based on space and weight limitations. You’ll need to consider the distance you’ll be traveling, as weight can really add up over miles. Being able to get a pack on your back and walk across the yard is no test of your ability to get from point A to point B with it. Remember, the best bug out bag is the one you have when you need it. Having more than you can safely carry, could force you to make decisions about what to leave behind, while already under stress. That won’t set you up for success.

The weight recommendation for men is up to 20% of their body weight. This is an outside max, and assumes peak physical condition. Ten to 15% is a much more realistic weight goal. The weight recommendation for women is 10% to 15% max.

Everything has weight and takes up space. Refer back to your planning phase; remember to choose those items that you are most likely to need first, and add to it as space and weight allow.

Choosing a Good Pack

Keep a couple of things in mind: a compact bag, packed full, with no extra space, is going to be the easiest to carry. A larger, loosely packed bag, even with equal weight, is more uncomfortable. So choose the smallest bag that will still accommodate the volume and weight that you’re targeting. Remember, too, that the bag itself weighs something. Choosing a light but durable bag will be vital to having the best bug out bag possible.

Assembling Your Bugout Bag

Packing things flat, or rolled very tightly, will allow you to fit more in less space. Make a list of items along with their weight. Start packing the most important, keeping track of the overall weight as it grows.

Don’t overestimate your ability to carry your pack for hours at a time. This is a costly mistake that may land you without the survival gear you need. Once you’ve carried a too heavy pack as far as you’re able, you’ll have to lighten it beyond the recommended weight in order to finish your trek. That’s lose lose. Proper packing, keeping your weight limit in mind at all times, is a vital part of preparing the best bug out bag possible.

Be Prepared, Not Scared

Once you’ve packed your bug out bag, take it out for a weekend of camping and survival training. Practicing your survival skills in a non-stress environment insures that you’re ready, physically and mentally, when the challenge arises. Skills that are only in your head, may not serve you well in the field. After a weekend of surviving with your bug out bag, unpack, re-evaluate and repack. Did you find that you needed things you didn’t have? Did you have things you didn’t need, or that would have been better traded out for a different item? Preparing for the future, and whatever eventualities it may hold, allows you the peace of mind to relax and enjoy the here and now. If you’re prepared, you don’t

The post How To Build The Best Bug-Out Bag appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Dealing with Liquid Waste While Bugging Out

Click here to view the original post.

This post is by Bernie Carr, apartmentprepper.com Close to a year ago, while we were focused on building our home preparedness items, I wrote about toilet paper substitutes in this post.   These days we are focusing on “bug out” supplies. Houston residents still talk about their nightmare trips right before Hurricane Rita, when people were trying to leave the city all at once.  Thousands of people were stuck in traffic for hours, as freeways turned into parking lots.  Drivers just […]

The post Dealing with Liquid Waste While Bugging Out appeared first on Apartment Prepper.

Bugging Out – Will You Make It There?

Click here to view the original post.

Bugging Out – Will You Make It There? When disaster happens, will you stay or will you go? How will you decide which to do or when it’s time to do it? If you decide to bug-out, where will you go and how will you get there? There are lots of questions and they require …

Continue reading »

The post Bugging Out – Will You Make It There? appeared first on SHTF & Prepping Central.

When the unexpected happens, will you be ready to bring your preps with you?

Click here to view the original post.

Hello my friend and welcome back!  Last August the area of the US was hit with heavy rains and historic flooding.  Because my home has never flooded, I didn’t consider the possibility of flood. …

The post When the unexpected happens, will you be ready to bring your preps with you? appeared first on American Preppers Online.

50 Survival Items to Put in Your Kids Backpacks

Click here to view the original post.

50 Survival Items to Put in Your Kids Backpacks If you’re in a survival situation and you’re on foot, your own bug out bag is going to be all you can manage. If you’re a parent or grandparent responsible for children in a survival situation, you can’t possibly carry everything they will need. It’s going … Continue reading 50 Survival Items to Put in Your Kids Backpacks

The post 50 Survival Items to Put in Your Kids Backpacks appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.

How To Make Bug Out Caches And Resupply Trips | episode 134

Click here to view the original post.
How To Make Bug Out Caches And Resupply Trips | episode 134
How To Make Bug Out Caches And Resupply Trips | episode 134

How To Make Bug Out Caches And Resupply Trips | episode 134

http://www.survivalpunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/134Caches.mp3

Download

 

Mike returns to the podcast this week and we discuss  Bug Out Caches and resupply trips. 

Just to define a cache real fast.

cache
kaSH/
noun 
  1. 1.
    a collection of items of the same type stored in a hidden or inaccessible place.
    “an arms cache”
     
verb 
  1. 1.
    store away in hiding or for future use.
     

 

 

Now that you know what a cache is you can see why we would want a  Bug Out Caches. 

In our case as preppers having extra stores away from our main preps just makes sense. 

Most Bug Out Bags are built to work for 72 hours. What happens if you need more supplies?

With caches, you can even carry less weight initially. 

 

 

Topics

 
  • Caches
  • Resupply trips
  • Mail drops
  • Scavenging excursions
 
 

 Caches

 
  • Buried caches along all bug out routes. 
  • Staches at friends house and Vice versa
  • Use some geocaching techniques
 
 

Resupply trips

 
  • Have places marked on your bug out routes to resupply? Know which places have what. 
  • Know the lesser used locations
  • Mark the more dangerous places as ones to avoid. I.e A certain store gets robbed often. 
  • Have the numbers to be able to call ahead and check on availability. 
 
 

Mail drops

 
  • Like hiking the Appalachian train you can use mail drops in certain bug outs. 
  • If it’s a localized emergency. 
  • use mail drops to have things waiting for you. 
  • With amazon prime, you can have items delivered in two days or less.
  • Think last minute drops to a bol or hotel even. 
 

Scavenging excursions. 

 
  • Not just for when SHTF
  • Mark GPS locations of wild edibles along your bug out routes. 
  • Know game trails around your Bug Out Routes
  • You can cache hunting/ fishing and trapping items along the way. 
  • don’t rule out dumpster diving especially in urban areas. 
 
 

Mike Rant

Mike has a fun rant this week about feminist. 

Amazon Item Of The Day

The Amazon item today is the Olight H1R Nova

 

Subscribe to the Survival Punk Survival Podcast. The most electrifying podcast on survival entertainment. 

Want to hear yourself on the podcast? Call in with your questions at (615) 657-9104 and leave us a voice mail. 

Like this post? Consider signing up for my email list here > Subscribe

Think this post was worth 20 cents? Consider joining The Survivalpunk Army and get access to exclusive content and discounts!join the Survival Punk Army

 

The post How To Make Bug Out Caches And Resupply Trips | episode 134 appeared first on Survival Punk.

Survival, Camping or Bushcraft?

Click here to view the original post.
Survival, Camping or Bushcraft?

If survival is what you are interested in & preparing for, then that is what you need to concentrate on. Camping is not survival, unless it is primitive camping, in which case there are skills to be learnt there. Bushcraft in the main is not about survival, it is about inventing new so called “skills” that you can practice & share but have no real practicle survival value. Modern camping & bushcraft is about gadgetry, new gadgets & tents are being produced all the time to lure the gadget oriented person into spending more money on stuff that has no real practicle value. Camping used to be about practicle skills & basic equipment, now it is an industry.


Lost survival is different from shtf survival. Lost survival involves people who fail to notify anyone where they are going & how long they will be, or they change their plans without telling anyone. SHTF survival is about surviving a major catastrophe, surviving an event that endangers your life & your living standards. If you are in the city you will have to leave & find somewhere safer in the country. If you are living in the country already you will need to step up your security measures. In both cases you will need to know primitive skills, & you will need basic tools to help you survive long term. Modern gadgets & modern tents won’t cut it. They will not last or stand up to the rigors of primitive living conditions & once they are gone you are left with nothing.

The author’s .62 caliber flintlock smoothbore fusil.
You need to choose a period pre 19th century & equip yourself with the tools & equipment of that period. Why? Because these tools will last, these tools were designed with a specific purpose in mind, survival, & once you are equipped in this fashion you will never drop below that level of comfort. Some 20th century tools will be very useful if you are already living in the country or are intending to move to a retreat. We are talking “hand tools” here, basic hand tools that do not rely on electricity or fuel to operate. You may well be living off grid using solar power electricity, but there is no guarantee that this will last. One of our batteries now has a dead cell, the system is still holding up, but for how long we can not tell.
So, think long & hard & seriously about how you equip yourself. Think about what will be required of the tools that you choose. A short bladed bushcraft knife will not kill as quickly as a longer bladed hunting knife if used for stabbing. Modern methods of fire lighting may not be the best, get a real flint, steel & tinderbox. This will last a lifetime & using it will teach you more fire lighting skills than using a ferrocerium rod. 
12 gauge Black Powder breechloader shotgun with brass cartridges.
When it comes to guns modern firearms are best for defence at your home in the bush, but if you have to “bug-out” with no dwelling to go to, then I recommend you carry a flintlock muzzleloading gun & a bow. Modern ammunition is heavy & bulky & if a modern firearm malfunctions, you are left with a fancy club or a goat stake! People are for ever rubbishing the flintlock muzzleloading gun, in favour of a more modern firearm. Yes having a 9mm Glock on your belt would be very reassuring, IF you can obtain one! My argument is that I can have a flintlock pistol right now, & I would sooner have a flintlock pistol than no handgun at all. Besides which there are many advantages to using a flintlock that are not available to you if you are using a modern breechloader.
.32 caliber flintlock rifle. Accurate, more power than a .22 rimfire & practicle for long term wilderness living.

So make up your mind now if you are really serious about shtf survival. If you genuinely think that something major could go down in the future that could threaten you (& your family);your life & your way of living, then stop wasting your time & money on modern gadgets & tents. Learn primitive skills & equip yourselves with primitive gear that will last long term. You will find that it is less expensive in the long run anyway.
Belt axe/tomahawk. Far more practicle than a machete.
Hunting knife for skinning, butchering & self-defence.
.70 caliber smoothbore flintlock pistol for defence.
Exceptions? Possibly water filters, these could be useful if you have to leave the city & go bush. Maybe not of long term use, but they may help in your escape. Medical. You can’t beat good modern medical supplies. By all means use herbal remedies, but do not rely solely on herbs for your survival.

Medical supplies are very important.

The author’s hunting sword. A good basic self-defence tool to carry after the fall.


Top Reasons for Bugging Out from Economic Collapse or Catastrophic Disaster

Click here to view the original post.

Top  Reasons for Bugging Out from Economic Collapse or Catastrophic Disaster

 

If you haven’t considered the horrendous consequences of a major catastrophe, you could be one of the first casualties in just the first few weeks or even days that follow.

A look at disasters that have struck third world countries shows how fast and how easily large numbers of people can die when not prepared and when criminals descend on the vulnerable.

Here are 7 reasons why you need a Bug Out Bag

Reason # 1 for Bugging Out

Supplies of food and water — GONE

Food Shortages – All supplies of food and water that come in to a metropolitan area have been destroyed. Within hours there are no stores or gas stations open and selling anything. Panicked and desperate crowds of people gather in both the streets and now looted and ransacked shopping districts. Roads and bridges may be out. Buildings and several homes and apartment buildings may be on fire. Around the area cries of sadness can be heard as people mourn lost or dead loved ones. If there are collapsed buildings other cries can be heard, those of people pinned and or partially crushed beneath buildings and other debris.

From street to street, chaos, rubble, fires

I can describe the possible carnage in multiple ways, as the carnage and destruction can be different from street to street and neighborhood to neighborhood. Gas pipes may have ruptured and exploded on one street. Broken water mains or sewer pipes may be flooding the ground up above on another.

Gunshots

Gunfire and even gunfire from automatic weapons may be unfolding elsewhere nearby. But who’s gunning it out with who?

Are Army troops setting up martial law and encountering resistance from local citizens? Are the police or national guard at war with local gangs? Is there an ISIS supporter seeing this disaster as his personal opportunity for Jihad on his neighbors who won’t convert or whom he knows are openly Christian or Jewish?

The police … or a pissed off psychopath in a clown suit

Or is it just a pissed off psychopath with his arsenal of weapons and ammo going berserk because, as far as he can tell, the world is coming to an end. With no belief in God, or belief in Hell, he can do whatever the hell he wants to whomever gets in his way. … The sound of automatic gunfire followed by screams of pain and terror. This shooter is gunning down anyone he can, finally letting out all that anger and disdain for human life he’s been holding in all these years. If he has any disdain for a person of another skin color, well whatever that disdain is they may be his first targets …

Race vs race.

Psychopath on a rampage.

Overzealous government troops in a desperate bid to enforce martial law.

Reason # 2 for Bugging Out

Escape the SHTF Circus of Terror that is Coming to Town

Riots – Every where you look, SHTF. In some cities, literally it’s a circus of terror. But haven’t we seen the signs that this day is coming? Didn’t Jesus warn us in different gospels about a terrible day coming to our planet for unbelievers and those not right with God? He said there would be signs in the heavens and signs in the earth. Maybe, just maybe, one of those signs that is taking place as I write these words has to do with clowns; you know those same clowns headlining the news and social media currently… I’ve studied the Bible’s Revelation many times over the years and my conclusion about Revelation is still the same. Revelation is a circus and it’s God unleashing one judgment after another, including the supernatural and a flood of demons, and a flood of evil and violence and disasters, and anything can happen, and it does.

A serious question we all need to ask ourselves is this: Is Revelation finally at our doorstep?

Panicked and Desperate Mobs with No Food or Water

Where ever you are in the region, one thing is for certain you decide — it’s time to Bug Out before those panicked mobs of people down in the city or just across the railroad tracks on the wrong side of town descend on your safe community or neighborhood just a short distance away.

Waiting for FEMA — But FEMA Never Comes

Most of the mobs may be likely to stay near their homes and apartments the first few days, hoping for relief agencies like FEMA or the Red Cross to fly in supplies from helicopter and air drops from overhead planes. But if those supplies never come, for the first time in life these panicked mobs are going to experience true hunger.

When that happens, things are going to get desperate for a lot of them. And desperate people are known to do desperate things. Expect several suicides. Expect several to turn to violent crime, and that includes street gangs and those who already employed as career criminals.

With the police spread thin and short handed, street gangs and career criminals are about to have a hay-day taking whatever they want from whomever they can.

Street gangs are survival predators

Today, street gangs are filled with survivalists, just not the kind you’re thinking of. A lot of these gang members have a predatory survival instinct. In some neighborhoods every day can be a fight for survival as they compete with other gangs in the area and against other dangerous elements. A lot of these gang members have an eye for spotting opportunity and preying on any weaknesses they see in another gang or possible drug dealer working that area. They are constantly looking over shoulders for police while at the same time robberies and murder are common place in the worst neighborhoods of the biggest cities.

Black Gangs, Mexican Gangs, White Gangs, Asian Gangs

Gang leaders and safe houses can have stocks of weapons and ammunition, purchased with drug and blood money both, and stored away for those times that gangs perceive possible turf wars with other gangs, or simply as a second income stream, as they supply people with guns and ammo both and at a price.

Asian gangs? If a major city near you has a China Town, guess what they also have well armed Asian gangs. Mexican gangs? You don’t have to live near Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, or Denver to have a threat from Mexican gangs. If you live in any kind of region near the Mexican border there’s a good chance that Mexican gangs may cross what will now be an unprotected border and head up into U.S. towns looking for loot or anything else they can get there hands on.

White gangs include one percenter bikers, neo-nazis, Russians who are American citizens (we have Russian gangs in several cities or just low level Russian mafia) and general white street criminals from major cities and towns across America. They run drug houses, car theft rings, robbery and extortion activities, the list goes on.

Reason # 3 for Bugging Out

Street gangs and mobs descend on outlying communities

Street Gangs – Some gangs may claim areas as their own, and then deplete all supplies within those areas (often taken by force) before moving on to another area to look for more supplies.

Statistically, around the U.S. and other nations, large cities will have countless numbers of gang members and a number of violent criminals as well as those desperate mobs who seek out the “prosperous” and “peaceful” communities just a few miles out. Scattered in that number fleeing major cities will be high level sex predators … Can anyone guess how a number of these sex predators are going to react to a situation where lawlessness has come to the region; families are separated, parents are missing or may be dead; children wander the streets lost, confused, looking for help. Police are spread thin or nowhere to be found. God help us …

Should you bug out with your family?

That depends on several things. You may be far enough from population centers where you live currently in an outlying community or distant town and bugging out won’t be as important in the first few weeks or months as it is for someone who lives a lot closer to those desperate mobs of people.

Though even if you are in a relatively safe area, any number of events can take place that may make bugging out essential from day one.


RELATED : 10 BUG OUT BAG MISTAKES THAT CAN GET YOU KILLED


Reason # 5 for Bugging Out

Nukes and or Dirty Bombs

Radioactive Fallout from Dirty Bombs or Nuclear Weapons – For a lot of people, that may be to escape radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon that has just decimated a major city within 50-100 miles and now a radioactive cloud is being carried in your direction by the prevailing winds. Not a lot of people can claim they have a radioactive chemical mask for just such an occasion, yet it is a critical piece of survival gear for residents who live within 100 miles or so of a major city that one day may get nuked. At one time, there weren’t many places in the U.S. to purchase from. But with the growing concern of a nuclear conflict, a lot more are being sold in the U.S. and at reasonable or even low prices. Finally, a Civilian gas mask rated for a nuclear or chemical emergency is available at a lower price. Israel has long lived under a constant threat; a protective mask along these lines is standard fair for citizens (as well as knowing what to do in a nuclear or chemical emergency and access to bomb shelters throughout Israel.

It’s worth mentioning here: We need a lot more bomb shelters in the U.S., though several do exist across the United States often near state or city government buildings; check with your local municipality whether or not your area has a bomb shelter and who has access to it in a nuclear emergency; it might be for local officials only).

Putin has told Russians to leave America and get ready for nuclear war

Right now in world news Vladmir Putin has ordered Russian citizens to be ready for a nuclear conflict with the United States, to know where bomb shelters are, and to have the supplies and know-how for surviving nuclear attack. One of those supplies is a chemical mask rated for nuclear radiation.

If you’re a Russian living in the U.S. he’s advised that you get out. Some say this is just talk meant to scare the West into believing that Russia means business and is not to be messed with. Whatever the reasons for these words, we should see it as a clue that future months ahead could lead into an actual war with Russia.

Should you get a chemical mask rated for nuclear protection?

Chemical masks are already well known in Israel as they live under a constant threat of chemical attack.

But even if years go without any attacks the threat will continue to remain. One day it might happen; it might happen to us as well. Better to have a protective gas mask close by and even in the trunk of your vehicle ‘just in case.’

Terrorist bombs major university; chemical weapons

This goes for students and teachers also. A small chemical bomb is an easy way for a homegrown terrorist to attack a local university. Police stations, government buildings, nightclubs, business districts, sporting events, and shopping malls are also at high risk for chemical bombs — or any kind of bombs for that matter.

I’m not talking about military scale bombs. The small scale bombs I’m referring to are much easier to build and scatter around a local region. (I may have received good information that this is going to be a commmon danger in the months ahead; people are going to die; in other words, it’s going to start happening, and then continue to happen.)


RELATED : How to Bug-In: What You Need to Know to Survive a Grid-Down Disaster


Reason # 6 for Bugging Out

What if a nearby dam is destroyed?

Attack on Dams and Water Supplies – For others forced to bug out, it could be a dam that is destroyed a few miles away that is now flooding the entire valley where you live, sending hundreds of thousands of people on a sudden evacuation into the countryside and toward higher ground. Your city, shopping malls, and schools are suddenly gone — buried under flood waters.

Could a dam really be destroyed? That just depends on the size of the bomb and the desire of a terrorist or attacking government to inflict terror and mass casualties. Several dams could already be pinpointed on an attacker’s maps of cites to destroy in the first wave of an attack; several water reservoirs may have been poisoned by any number of highly toxic chemicals (though risk of this is said to be minimal — nothing is for sure though; what if the water is poisoned at a local treatment plant where a homegrown terrorist works full time?).

Some nukes can be delivered by truck or van

While some nukes could be small enough to fit in a vehicle (after being smuggled into the U.S.) and then driven to a major city and detonated (one of the Pentagon’s current fears), others may have been fired from a small boat or cargo ship off shore (one of New York City’s current fears and something that the Coast Guard is constantly monitoring for).

Nuclear danger from international flights

An even easier way to get a nuke into the U.S.? How about arming “China Air” with a nuclear bomb before it ever leaves China on a routine international flight and then finally detonating that bomb just as the airline is on its final approach and descending toward Los Angeles International Airport. In just a few seconds and a blinding flash of light:

Los Angeles … gone forever.

More nukes are streaking across the sky fired from missiles just off U.S. shores

Several nuclear tipped missiles may shortly after streak across the sky toward several destinations across the U.S., those near the coast would be the first destroyed.

Major dams … power plants … military bases … government buildings … business districts… possibly even toward the head offices for FEMA and Homeland Security. (If you want to make sure the U.S. doesn’t recover from a nuclear attack, don’t just bomb major cities — bomb our critical infrastructure and emergency responders.)

The more thorough an attacking enemy is with their plans, the more they can ensure that the United States of America never recovers.

That realization makes it that much more likely that the first wave of an attack will be more than just a first wave — it’s likely to seem like a flood. It will be catastrophic.

Expect disasters on a Biblical scale

Jesus said in Matthew 24: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man…” But then in the Book of Peter, further in the Bible, we’re told “the end will come like a flood” and also told that the end judgments are reserved for “fire.” So it won’t be another flood of water that God uses to judge the world; we can expect something different. It’s going to be big. It’s going to be bad. It’s going to be ugly . Important questions are answered along the way: For example: Why is God going to judge the world for it’s evils? And … is there any way to escape it? (Yes, there is. Click on the link to learn how to get your life right with God today — before all Hell breaks loose. Because it’s coming. The time is short.)


RELATED : Using A Slingshot As A Survivalist Hunting Weapon


Reason # 7 for Bugging Out

Bugging out may not be a choice — if you stay, you die

Get Out of Dodge – When it comes to bugging out (or bugging in, which basically means to “shelter in place”), the fact of the matter is this: Even if you could win a reward for “prepper” of the year, anything could happen that forces you to flee your home and preps and escape on a bug out into the hills or nearby wilderness. A sudden evacuation may be a matter of life or death — or imprisonment in a concentration camp of some sort ran by some new governing power in the area.

In this case it’s just you, your bug out bag, a good pair of boots, for a lot of people that includes firearms, along with everything you managed to pack into your backpack. If you have a family, they better have their bug out bags packed as well.

Source : secretsofsurvival.com

The post Top Reasons for Bugging Out from Economic Collapse or Catastrophic Disaster appeared first on .

Brass Shells for my Black Powder DB Shotgun.

Click here to view the original post.

My youngest son bought me two boxes of brass shells for my black powder 12 gauge, so I have some hand loading to do.
Bring on the Zombies 😊 

No loader required, I can load these brass shells in just the same way as I load my muzzle-loading guns. The only difference is that I also need primers for the shells. More on this when I start reloading.
Keith.
 

Being a creature of habit could get you killed when it all goes south.

Click here to view the original post.

Hello my friend and welcome back! In today’s post, we are going to look at how dangerous being creatures of habit can be in a SHTF situation. Grab a cup of coffee, my friend,…

The post Being a creature of habit could get you killed when it all goes south. appeared first on American Preppers Online.

Bugging Out. Carrying all that weight.

Click here to view the original post.
You can travel light and carry all you need for long term wilderness living/survival, all that is accept perhaps enough water and food! If there are water holes on your route then there is no problem. If you are able to hunt & forage on the way then there is no problem. But what if you get diverted have to by-pass those water holes? What if you are trekking in winter and there are few edible plants to find and the game is scarce? Then you have a problem. You can survive for three days without water, but this also depends on how hard you are working. You can survive three weeks without food, but again, this is dependent on your exertion level. You probably know as well as I that when you are working hard your need for water and food increases. You are drinking all the time to stay hydrated and come lunch time you are very hungry. To go without water and food is dangerous, because the lack of water and food effects how you perform, mentally and physically. One minute you think you are doing fine, the next minute you are feeling sick. Keep going and you will collapse.
Sharing the load with a partner is fine, you can carry the shelter, kettle, arms and ammunition, your partner can carry the water. But water is heavy, and to be safe and practicle your partner also needs to carry at least some of her/his own equipment. Simply put, you can never really carry enough water for a long trek unless you can find a water source along the way to refill your water bottles. Even then to be safe you will need to stop and boil that water before you can drink it.
So what is a simple and practicle alternative? Using a trekking trolley. A trekking trolley can carry a lot of weight, and there is a wide variety of different trolleys to suit your needs. On a level surface pulling a trolley is easier that carrying a heavy load, but going uphill you will need to pace yourself. Even so, when you stop for a rest on the trail and take a drink of water, you are not still bearing that load. If you are travelling with a partner or a group, you can use a rope to link you to another trekker who can help pull the load up steep inclines. If you can afford it, you can purchase a trekking trolley, if you don’t have the funds, then you can make your own without too much trouble.
An Australian made trekking trolley.
A trekking trolley that the author made from old wheelbarrow parts and bush timber. This one only has one wheel, but the author plans to make another one from an old golf trolley.

When you reach your destination this trolley will still be of use, and can be used for: transporting game, transporting water from a water source, carrying firewood, transporting rocks for a fireplace, moving camp if needs be. Perhaps you can think of further uses?
Keith.

Unconventional Bug Out Vehicle Options

Click here to view the original post.

What is a Bug Out Vehicle? When the SHTF (shit hits the fan) or TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it) happens, there are several ways to respond. You could panic and die like a meek sheep. You could “bug in” at your already prepped (and secure) home. Or you could “bug out” of the place you currently live and head to a predetermined safe place. If you choose the “bug out” option, then you will need a vehicle that can haul your family–and any supplies you need for the journey–to your desired destination. THIS is a “Bug Out Vehicle.”

There is no perfect overall bug out vehicle, but there are many different options. Base your choice on your budget, where you’ll be running from, your bug out destination, how many people you’ll be transporting, and how much stuff you’ll be carrying with you. The unconventional bug out vehicle is our focus in this post. But before we get to those, let’s mention the standard ones.

Standard Bug Out Vehicle

I’ve seen some really cool DIY bug out vehicles:

All of these standard bug out vehicles have pros and cons. There are many sites that cover them. You can click on some of the links above to get more information.


Unconventional Bug Out Vehicle

Regardless of what SHTF event happens, if you don’t get out of town fast all of the major roads are going to be jammed. Because of this, let’s look at some unconventional bug out vehicle options that don’t involve roads.

Bug Out Railroad Vehicle

When the roads are jam-packed, the fastest land routes between cities will probably be the railroads. I don’t mean train travel, but rather a custom-made railroad vehicle. Imagine a bicycle that can be easily put on and pulled off the tracks, or a small cart zipping down the track as quickly as possible. There is a huge web-like railroad infrastructure criss-crossing the whole country. Wherever you’re going, you can probably get close by taking a railway. Plan your route ahead of time with this Interactive Railroad Map.

The first time I heard of the railroad bug out vehicle option was when I read about a bug out railroad bike; a mountain bike that had a small frame like a boat outrigger on the side of it, and a guide on the front wheel to keep you from having to steer. I’ve seen frames made out of aluminum tubes (and even PVC pipes) attached to different types of bicycles. Talk about a cheap bug out vehicle. A railroad bike may be the best bug out transportation to get if you’re on a tight budget. Here is a nice two seater one. And here’s a link to a guy who fabricates rail wheels.

A quick search on YouTube will result in several options. Here is a cool rail bike made with PVC:

 
But if you don’t feel like pedaling, you might prefer a bug out railroad cart instead. These are custom made platforms with rail wheels and typically a lawn mower engine on the back to propel it. The down side to these is that they do not typically have standard wheels on them, so you are confined to the railroad tracks, which could be problematic if you see trouble (or a train) coming toward you.

Here is a YouTube video of a cool rail cart:

 
Now if you are not interested in building a bug out vehicle for yourself, why not see if you can find a bug out vehicle kits to attach to one of your existing vehicles. I’ve seen maintenance trucks with a special guide on the front and back. Here is a video of a homemade golf cart on a railroad.

 
It sure would be awesome if you could get guides like this to fit on a Polaris RZR!!

Polaris RZR


Bug Out Powered Paraglider

I’ve always wanted to learn how to fly a powered paraglider, but I live in a big city (Houston) where there really isn’t a place to do this without going down to the coast, which is about an hour’s drive. Not a very practical bug out option for me. But if I lived in a less crowded area (and wasn’t worried about transporting a family) I’d be all over this. A powered paraglider would be a sweet bug out vehicle for one or two people. You could clip a small bug out bag on the front of your body and fly above everyone else on your way out of Dodge. I’m sure you could figure out some interesting bug out vehicle accessories for this. They would need to be small and light.

Here are a couple YouTube videos to get you excited:

 

 


Bug Out Rowboat

Bug Out Ocean Rowboat - truly an unconventional bug out vehicle

So what if you lived along the coastline or near a large river? Large waterways could be great escape routes. Have you ever heard of an ocean rowboat? Talk about a legit survival vessel. There are people who use them to row all the way across the Atlantic Ocean, from one continent to another. Now this isn’t exactly for everyone, but say you lived and worked in New York and your family was off the coast in South Carolina. Could you imagine trying to get to them by taking the roads through Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC? You would be torn apart by politicians! 🙂

Take a boat, instead. Move it from storage to the water under the darkness of night and head out to sea. These vessels have a small sleeping compartment in the back. They have plenty of airtight storage space, and they are easy to maneuver. I know what you’re thinking. Why not a high powered motorboat or a comfortable sailboat? Think of this setup as your own personal post-apocalyptic gym.

Here are some links so you can find out more information:

If your plan is to bug out in the event of societal collapse, you should put plenty of thought into the type of bug out vehicle you need. What is your budget? What kind of terrain will you encounter between the place you’re leaving and your bug out destination? How many people will you need to move from here to there? And how much supply stash will you need to carry? After taking all of that into account, a standard bug out vehicle may not be your best choice. You might need to think outside the box and give an unconventional bug out transportation option a try.

If you found this article helpful/interesting, please Share it by clicking on the social media links. Thank you for helping us grow!

The post Unconventional Bug Out Vehicle Options appeared first on Surviving Prepper.

The Perfect Urban Bug Out Bag

Click here to view the original post.

The topic of bug out bags has been beaten to death, yet there’s so many things that need to be said. People are talking about what to add, what to leave out, and how to make a BOB smaller and lighter. They keep in mind their personal needs, climate, location, which brings me to the topic of today’s piece: how to build a bug out bag if you live in the city. Known as an urban bug out bag.

Unlike people living in the burbs, in small towns, or even in the wilderness, city dwellers have no choice BUT to evacuate. Unless you live in a big house with a garden and plenty of space for your stockpile–plus the means to defend it–you probably won’t last for more than a month in the city after the SHTF.

Bugging out becomes of utmost importance and so is having a bug out bag. That being said, an urban BOB should be lighter, smaller, but, at the same time, you have to put a lot more thought into it.

Why should it be lighter and smaller? Because the task of getting out of the city is going to be filled with dangers. You’ll likely have narrow streets, traffic jams, riots, and thugs waiting for you at every corner. If you’ll be bugging out on foot or on a bike, a large bug out bag is not very feasible.

Sure, if you have a bug out vehicle, you can stock up on a lot more items in the trunk but what if you have to abandon it? What if your vehicle is attacked by gangs of thugs (and we’ve seen numerous cases ever since the economic migrants have started flooding Europe)?

Having a large hiking backpack is going to attract attention if you’re on foot so, in most cases, you’re better off with a smaller one.

The biggest objection to having a smaller BOB has to be about not having enough to survive. Most bags are designed to keep the owner alive for at least a week. However, in urban scenarios, I’m assuming you have a location nearby and that bugging out is your main choice when SHTF. As long as the place is less than 60 miles away, you could get to it within 2-3 days on foot if you’re in good shape.

The Backpack

Building the perfect urban bug out bag starts with the perfect bag. I suggest you get something that has a capacity of less than 7 gallons (or, approximately, 25 liters). A few recommendations:

Just make sure you don’t get anything that screams “I’m a prepper”. Camo, green and bold colors are all no-nos and so is MOLLE webbing. Also, get something that has lots of pockets to keep some of the items you’re most likely to use when you’re on the run, such as a self-defense weapon or a first aid kit.

Now, does this mean you can’t get a slightly larger bag? Of course you can. For example, the Kelty Redwing is a great 50 liter backpack with an internal frame. If you’re in good physical shape and you’d like to have your tools on hand, there’s no reason not to add more weight, as long as you do it smart. For example, you can get a second bag that’s smaller, fill that with supplies and keep it inside your main BOB or attach it to the outside. This way, if the weight is dragging you down, you can just throw the bigger bag and keep the small one.

The Items

There are numerous articles detailing the various items you should have inside a bug out bag, but the thing to keep in mind for smaller backpacks is that you need to get the ones that are smaller, yet they don’t compromise on quality.

Before you rush on Amazon to buy the best sellers, I strongly suggest you dig up similar items that are smaller and lighter. Get smaller:

  • whistles
  • multi-tools
  • knives
  • hand-crank radios
  • personal water filters
  • lighters
  • pocket chainsaws
  • notebooks
  • pencils

By the way, here’s a video showing a pocket chainsaw in action.

How do you make your urban bug out bag perfect?

Easy. You just have to keep these things in mind:

– Leave some extra room in case you need to add something you find along the way. In addition, once you use your items, you will find they take up more space because you won’t be able or won’t have time to properly re-pack them.

– There are various hacks to shed some pounds off your bag by crippling your toothbrush, for instance. You don’t really need the handle.

– Stock up on multi-use items. Duct tape, Ziploc bags, Paracord, bandanas – these are just a tiny few of the items that have numerous applications in survival.

– Get items that can do more than one thing. For example, Amazon has emergency radios that also have flashlights and can even charge your phone.

– If possible, keep a pair of hiking boots next to (or even attached to) your bag. This way, when you grab your bag in a hurry, the boots will come along with it. I’m assuming you don’t have time to put them on.

– Follow the “two is one, one is none” rule. Redundancy is critical for survival so always make sure you have at least a couple of ways to light a fire, purify and filter water, defend yourself etc.

– Don’t pack too much food and water. It’ll make the whole bag extremely heavy. Again, I’m assuming you’re prepping to stay no more than 72 hours away from permanent shelter. Light, high-caloric foods such as raisins, freeze-dried food and hard candy and a quarter of a gallon of water should suffice. Remember that because the food will stay for months on end at room temperature, shelf life will decrease so you may want to rotate it more often.

Final Word About an Urban Bug Out Bag

The big takeaway is this: building the perfect urban bug out bag is not hard or expensive, as long as you put some thought into it. You need the right backpack and the right gear to put it together. All you have to do next is focus on your skills, because, as the saying goes, a fool with a tool is still a fool.

The post The Perfect Urban Bug Out Bag appeared first on Surviving Prepper.

POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS

Click here to view the original post.
POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS Politicians Show Preference for Covert Undemocratic AG21 Policy Graham Williamson Revised edition January 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper is about Agenda 21 and its implementation in Australia. Its primary purpose is to examine the implementation process and assess its democratic foundations and whether the public have truly been permitted to make an informed democratic choice. Its secondary purpose is to evaluate whether Agenda 21 is beneficial and necessary for Australians. Using extensive documentary evidence from experts, combined with personal correspondence documented in the Appendices, the following fundamental facts have been established. 1. Agenda 21 is a fundamentally undemocratic, sovereignty threatening, UN designed and monitored program which is being banned overseas because of the threat it poses to fundamental human rights. Agenda 21 is found to pose a serious risk to freedom and human rights and is unnecessarily foreign in its origin and control. 2. All three levels of government have been undemocratically implementing this program throughout Australia, on behalf of the UN, for 10-20 years. All the evidence indicates the consistent political refusal to publicly declare AG21 policy has been non-negotiable & bipartisan. 3. In 20 years, all major political parties have refused to openly declare their Agenda 21 policy during elections to enable citizens to make an informed democratic choice. All major parties have preferred to implement Agenda 21 as undeclared or covert policy. As a result, community ignorance about AG21 and its implications are widespread. 4. Although pervasively embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels, when directly questioned about AG21 our elected representatives go to extraordinary lengths to either avoid the subject or pretend it is not being implemented. From all my enquiries, not one politician or bureaucrat eagerly responded by openly detailing the many ways in which the tentacles of AG21 are being implemented through the various government departments. Implementation of Agenda 21 is based upon a failure to accurately and truthfully inform Australians. It is based upon deception and trashing of democracy. AG21 is a policy far bigger than any other policy. It is a policy of 20 years duration. It is a policy implemented by both major parties and all 3 levels of government around Australia. It has penetrated from Canberra to local communities everywhere. It shapes our legal system, our economic system, our environmental system, our political system, and even the education of our children. It is not possible to imagine a more massive political policy, yet it is excluded from the electoral agenda and the official policies of all major parties. This policy is being enforced upon us and we have been denied any democratic choice. Why? This is a massive scandal and it is why our politicians are desperately trying to shut the debate down. It is a scandal that dwarfs even the CO2 tax and climate change which form just one part of it. The past 20 years, and my correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite clearly that a change of government will not solve this issue. What is needed is a return to democracy, dramatically increased political accountability, strengthening of sovereignty, and a renewed political commitment of allegiance to the people rather than an allegiance to the UN. Introduction All 3 levels of government in Australia, and all major political parties, have chosen to implement a foreign United Nations designed and monitored ‘sustainability’ program called Agenda 21. Governments have been implementing this program around Australia for 10-20 years although all major parties have been unanimous in their decision not to give Australians a democratic choice on this issue at election time. Further, this foreign program has pervasively infiltrated local councils and the legal system so that property rights are being insidiously and progressively transferred from humans to plants and the environment. And our politicians, without the knowledge or permission of the overwhelming majority of Australians, have even seen fit to embed this foreign program into the school curriculum to ensure our children are indoctrinated with UN propaganda. In view of these developments I contacted various political parties in an attempt to clarify their policy regarding Agenda 21. This paper documents more than 12 months research into Agenda 21 & the response of political parties & elected representatives to simple questions regarding the implementation of this foreign UN program. It documents the difficulties involved in obtaining clear truthful answers from our elected representatives, irrespective of the party they represent. And it documents the death of democracy in Australia as political parties present one policy to the people during elections, but when elected they proceed to implement undeclared or covert policies, or policies of which they are apparently so ashamed they refuse to openly discuss them. This paper documents this disturbing abandonment of democracy. How is it possible to have a pervasive far reaching program such as Agenda 21 implemented by government departments and councils throughout Australia for 10-20 years and yet this program is omitted from official policy? And when our elected representatives are directly questioned about implementation of this UN program, why do they feel the need to go to extraordinary lengths to refuse to discuss it or even pretend it is not being implemented? It is astonishing that my exhaustive attempts to obtain simple answers from our elected representatives have met with such a solid brick wall of deception or obfuscation. In order to supply background information, and evidence from experts and from government departments, I have included the following detailed Appendices below. Most of the Appendices are self-explanatory. Appendix J documents some of the real life results of the government drive to support the ecocentric rewriting of the legal system and the erosion of property rights as proposed by Agenda 21. Appendix K documents the involvement of councils which are at the forefront of the implementation of UN AG21 restriction of land use and property rights while Appendix L documents my complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding council involvement. Appendix A – Introduction & Background to Agenda 21. Appendix B – Evidence of the Extent to Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without Giving Australians any Democratic Choice. Appendix C – Rewriting the Legal System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment. Appendix D – Response to Correspondence from the Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell. Appendix E – Correspondence with the NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell Appendix F – Correspondence with the NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker. Appendix G – Correspondence with the NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Appendix H – Correspondence with the Minister for Local Government Don Page Appendix I – Correspondence with the NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard Appendix J – Transferring Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment: Submission to the NSW Government BioBanking review Appendix K – Correspondence With Eurobodalla Shire Council Appendix L – Complaint to NSW Ombudsman Appendix M – Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Witness below the extraordinary determination of politicians not to openly discuss a policy they have been enforcing upon Australians for up to 20 years. And witness their continuing determination to implement Agenda 21 covertly and prevent Australians from having any say. The Politicians Speak, or Refuse to Speak, About AG21 On 8th September 2012 I asked the following politicians or political parties to state their policy regarding Agenda 21. That correspondence, based upon the fact that the WA Greens are the only party that openly state Agenda 21 policy, typically asked as follows: Dear Sir, I notice that the WA Greens openly endorse the Agenda 21 program in their policy platform as below. Do you, and the NSW Liberal Party, agree with this policy and support Agenda 21 also? If so, why is it not included in your official policy? Since the NSW Liberal Party has been endorsing Agenda 21 or implementing it for nearly 20 years, will you be adding it to your official policies or do you prefer to continue to implement it without mentioning it in your policies? Why? If you have no intention of adding it to your official policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it as has been done in Alabama? Regards Graham Williamson http://wa.greens.org.au/policies/local-government-0 The Greens (WA) want: · the Local Government Act amended to require the principles of ecological sustainable development in Agenda 211 be the basis of local government policy This correspondence was directed to the following. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell The NSW Liberal Party The Queensland Liberal National Party The Liberal Party of Victoria Vic Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell Leader of the National Party of Australia – Warren Truss The National Party of Australia The NSW National Party Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew Stoner The Greens NSW Liberal Party of Australia Opposition Leader – Tony Abbott Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne The Queensland Greens The Australian Greens Victoria In addition, detailed questions regarding Agenda 21 were addressed to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell, NSW Attorney General Greg Smith, NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker, NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard, Minister for Local Government Don Page, & Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage. The responses & non-responses of our elected representatives to very simple questions are alarming in their consistent evasiveness & dismissiveness. These responses are documented below. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell – See Appendix E In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Premier on 21st July 2012, 8th September, 23rd September, 24th September, 25th November, & 2nd December, no response has yet been received. Yet, in spite of this non-response, the issues raised with the Premier were very serious, including deceit and misinformation about AG21 and the abandonment of Ministerial responsibilities by the Attorney General. NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker – See Appendix F Correspondence with the NSW Minister for the Environment is documented in Appendix E. Since I received no response to my correspondence of 4th October, I sent a further reminder to the Minister on the 25th November. No attempt has been made by the Minister to answer the issues I raised and I have yet to receive any response to this correspondence. NSW Attorney General & Minister for Justice Greg Smith – See Appendix G Correspondence with the NSW Attorney General is documented in Appendix F. When I wrote to the Minister asking about the use of laws based upon foreign programs like AG21 to penalise NSW citizens, and the conversion of the NSW judicial system from its traditional anthropocentric basis to an ecocentric basis, he responded that “The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice.” But when I responded by asking him: “Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible?”; he opted to completely avoid all the issues I raised by issuing the following evasive dismissive response. Dear Mr Williamson (final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. The Attorney General clearly seems to agree with other Ministers that Agenda 21 must continue to be implemented while pretending to the public that it is not happening and denying them any democratic choice. The NSW Minister for Local Government Don Page – see Appendix H In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 21st July 2012, 23rd July, 25 th September & 25th November, no meaningful response has yet been received. The final response received from the Minister’s office, dated 17th Dec 2012, continued the same dismissiveness and evasiveness. In my correspondence I asked various questions of the Minister including: 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? 4. Although you are overseeing the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level you not only expressed no concern whatsoever about the above matters, you even chose to pretend implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is not your responsibility. Why? In response to these questions regarding AG21 the Minister’s office replied: The government’s determination to implement AG21 without giving residents any choice, and without even discussing it, is once again made perfectly clear by the Minister’s refusal to respond. The NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard – see Appendix I In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 29th June, 21st July 2012, 31st July, 9 th August, 23 rd September & 25th November, no meaningful response has yet been received. The response from the Minister’s office dated 19th Dec is also evasive and completely avoids all the issues I raised concerning AG21. The NSW Liberal Party After writing to the leader of the NSW Liberal Party on 8 th September, 23rd September, & the 25th November, I received the following response on the 26th November. Dear Graham, The Liberal Party is committed to environmental action and is why we are establishing a Green Army which will deliver real benefits to local communities. It is suggested you contact your local member to find out more about this. Kind Regards, Liberal Campaign Headquarters LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (NSW DIVISION) T 02 8356 0300 | F 02 9331 4480 | E chq@nsw.liberal.org.au The Queensland Liberal National Party In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Queensland Liberal National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The Liberal Party of Victoria The Liberal Party of Victoria responded on 25th September stating they had nothing to do with policy & I should contact the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell. Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell – See Appendix D On 23rd of November I received a response from the Minister’s office, signed by Chief of Staff, James Lantry. Mr Lantry stated, on behalf of the Minister: “Please note that the Victorian Government has not adopted the Agenda 21 policy platform as part of its policies, but continues to undertake actions in accordance with sound environmental policies for the benefit of all Victorians.” Of course this is totally untrue which I point out in my response which is documented below in Appendix D, below. Government documents I cite clearly confirm that the government has in fact been implementing Agenda 21 programs in Victoria for more than 10 years. The Minister’s denial of the facts raise serious questions, as I indicate in my response: “Unless you can supply current documentation proving you have outlawed or banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported sustainability programs from Victoria, then to suggest your government is not part of the implementation of this program is at best extremely misleading, and at worst, a deliberate untruth designed to deliberately deceive the public. Which is it? Why is it apparently so important to you NOT to openly declare this program as policy? Or will you immediately ban it and all such imported programs?” To date I have received no further response from the Minister. Leader of the National Party of Australia – Warren Truss In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the leader of the National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The National Party of Australia In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The NSW National Party In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the NSW National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew Stoner After writing to the leader of the NSW National Party on 8 th September & 23rd September, I received the following response on the 24th September. Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails dated 8 September 2012 and 23 September 2012. Your request is currently receiving attention and a response is forthcoming. Kind regards Office of the NSW Deputy Premier. Due to the fact that I received no further response from Mr Stoner, in spite of the promise made by his office, I sent a further reminder to him on the 25th November. No response has yet been received. The Greens NSW After writing to the NSW Greens on 8 th September, 23rd September, & 25th November, I received the following response from NSW Greens MP, Mr David Shoebridge, on the 30th November. Dear Graham, Thank you for your email. Australian Greens constituent bodies (i.e. states and territories) create policies independently of each other, within the broader framework of the Australian Greens. It would probably be incorrect to assume that simply because one state mentioned an item in their policy and another didn’t that this means the states are at loggerheads over the issue. All Greens parties in Australia develop policies based on local circumstances through grassroots processes. To my knowledge Agenda 21 has not been raised in NSW as part of our Local Government policy development process in the past. If you are interested, you can find the Greens NSW local government policy online here: http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/local-government. The Greens NSW will be working through a process of reviewing all of our policies ahead of the next state election through our grassroots democratic processes. If you are interested in policy development in the area of local government, and supportive of the four main principles of the Greens, I recommend you join the party (if you are not already) and get involved with the grassroots discussions with other members. Thanks again for your email. David David Shoebridge Greens MP in the NSW Legislative Council P: (02) 9230 3030 |Media: 0433 753 376 |T: @ShoebridgeMLC SIGN UP TO STAY IN TOUCH at davidshoebridge.org.au/sign-up Liberal Party of Australia In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Liberal Party of Australia on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Opposition Leader – Tony Abbott In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from Mr Abbott on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne After writing to the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne, on the 8 th September, I received the following response from her office on the 23rdth of September. Dear Graham Thank you for your e-mail. Agenda 21 is an international blueprint that outlines actions that governments, international organisations, industries and the community can take to achieve sustainability. These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and on the sustainability of systems of production. The objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life. As such it provides a framework and statement of principles that you will find incorporated into many Australian Greens policies – copies of which you can find at http://greens.org.au/policies . The Australian Greens Party is a federation within which the WA Greens are entitled to establish their own policies relevant to their specific areas of interest and responsibility. They have chosen to apply one aspect of Agenda 21 – “the principles of ecological sustainable development” to underpin the operations of the Local Government Act in WA. This falls a long way short of “openly endorsing the Agenda 21 program in their policy platform” as you claim. Regards John Dodd Office of Senator Christine Milne Leader of the Australian Greens Level 1 Murray St Pier Hobart 7000 | Ph: 03 6224 8899 | Fax: 03 6224 7599 www.christinemilne.org.au | http://greens.org.au On 23rd September I sent the following response to Mr Dodd from Senator Milne’s office. Dear John, Thank you for your response. You state that “the objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life,” but yet you claim that the Greens (WA & National?)do not fully endorse the Agenda 21 program. Which objectives do you support and which do you find unacceptable? You failed to answer the following queries which I therefore repeat below. 1. Do you, or the Australian Greens, agree with this policy and support Agenda 21 also? 2. If so, why is it not included in your official policy? 3. Will you be adding it to your policies or do you disagree with the WA Greens? 4. If you have no intention of adding it to your official policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it? Regards Graham Williamson Due to the fact that no further response was received from the office of Senator Milne, I sent a further reminder on the 25th November. No response has yet been received. The Queensland Greens After writing to the Queensland Greens on the 8 th September & the 23rd September, I received the following response from the office of Senator Larissa Waters on the 9 th of October. Hi Graham, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this! Larissa had a quick through of your question and wanted to let you know that the concepts in Agenda 21 are imbued through all of the party’s policy platform, whether explicitly outlined or not. I’ve copied in a recent report which came out of our office regarding commitments which were made in Rio 20 years ago and where we’re up to now. Hope that helps Graham, Dominic DOMINIC JARVIS Office Manager Office of Senator Larissa Waters Australian Greens Senator for Queensland http://larissa-waters.greensmps.org.au/ Amazingly, It seems there are 2 fundamental types of political policies, namely, openly declared policies, or, on the other hand, concealed or embedded policies. Since Agenda 21 is an embedded policy there is apparently no need for the democratic approval of the electorate. The Australian Greens Victoria In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Victorian Greens on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage In my correspondence with Greg Hunt I asked the following questions with his partial responses in blue below (see Appendix M for details). 1. When your government warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were exceeding their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did you or the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties? Did you or the party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with this assessment? 2. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should you win government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring overseas? To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide by state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you deny this? Fact 2 Though you claim that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions” in fact it was included in 2006 SOE report under your watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3 Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is a simple fact, this raises serious questions about who is taking political responsibility for this since the electorate has never been given a democratic choice and politicians, like yourself, deny knowledge of it even though bureaucrats under their portfolio are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced from enclosed) Do you deny this?. Part of the problem of course was the decision by successive governments that Australia needed an imported sustainability program, one that was designed by a foreign agency and was monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course, governments, such as the Howard government, were required to send annual implementation reports to the CSD. Response from Greg Hunt. “There is nothing to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. I can honestly tell you that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions….. For the final time i had never heard of the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP’s or constituents until 19 years after the ing was apparently signed…… Given that for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration 19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm…… I will respectfully draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here to approach State based Governments as we have no powers over local Governments.” I replied to Greg by citing well documented evidence from his former government of the extensive government resources used to comply with the implementation requirements of AG21 (see Appendix M), arrangements which he claims complete ignorance about. I have as yet received no response. If we are to believe Greg’s claim of his complete ignorance of AG21 then the extreme level of incompetence that this would necessarily involve would immediately disqualify him from suitability for parliamentary office. Of course, should this be the case, then Greg, now his ignorance has been rectified, would be itching at the bit to now put things right by banning AG21. But alas, this is not the case. He refused to answer any of my questions about the Liberal Party’s AG21 policy at the next election. Conclusion It is clear that AG21 has been pervasively and undemocratically embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels. It is also clear that when directly questioned about AG21 our elected representatives go to extraordinary lengths to either avoid the subject or pretend it is not being implemented. From all my enquiries, not one politician or bureaucrat eagerly responded by proudly detailing the many ways in which the tentacles of AG21 are being implemented, and are benefiting Australia, by the various government departments. Implementation of Agenda 21 is based upon a failure to accurately and truthfully inform Australians. It is based upon deception and trashing of democracy. So far, the AG21 policy of both major political parties is…’more of the same’. In other words continue to implement AG21 but continue to do this covertly and refuse to give voters a choice at the next election. This of course is entirely consistent with their historical bipartisan determination NOT to give Australians a democratic choice by openly declaring their AG21 policy during the election campaigns of the past 20 years. The past 20 years, and my correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite clearly that a change of government will not solve this issue. What is needed is a return to democracy, dramatically increased political accountability, strengthening of sovereignty, and a renewed political commitment of allegiance to the people rather than an allegiance to the UN. It is up to you. Do you care enough? APPENDIX APPENDIX A Introduction & Background to Agenda 21 · AG21 is a foreign United Nations (UN) program aimed at controlling all aspects of people’s lives. It reduces or eliminates individual human rights such as private property rights (1, 2, 3, 4). AG21 is a UN program adopted by the Keating government in 1992, later ratified by the Howard government, & implemented by successive federal, state & local governments of all political persuasions ever since. In 20 years of implementation, neither of the two major political parties has declared AG 21 as official policy, nor given voters a democratic choice. · AG21 is an attempt to undemocratically enforce upon Australians a ‘foreign solution’ for what are termed “sustainability” issues. It is vitally important to understand that AG21 is undemocratic. It is an imported agenda that has been designed by, & its implementation monitored by, a foreign agency (the UN). Control must be increasingly surrendered to the UN & its foreign agencies with absolutely no limits being placed upon this process. · AG21 is very much a blank cheque with no clearly defined goals & no clearly defined limits regarding costs, legislative changes, loss of sovereignty, as well as loss of individual rights & democracy. · Implementation of Agenda 21 around the world has been monitored by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Participating countries are required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (5, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8). The CSD, which included despotic dictators from other countries, has been overseeing Australia’s compliance! The CSD however, is now being dissolved to be replaced by a high level political forum to be established in 2013 while ECOSOC will become responsible for sustainability & Agenda 21. The Australian government approves of these changes. · The guiding principle behind AG21 is a belief in Gaia or ecocentrism (22, 23, 24), or the supremacy of the rights of plants & the environment (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) & an abandonment of traditional anthropocentrism (36). In other words, rights are progressively transferred from humans to plants & the environment with the result that private property rights are being surrendered, piece by piece (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). · Two fundamental concepts upon which AG21 is based are intragenerational equity & intergenerational equity. a) Intragenerational equity states that common goods such as nature, environment, the ecosystem & therefore private property, must be shared amongst all. No one has exclusive rights of ownership (44, 45, 46, 47). According to the principle of intragenerational equity, the rights of those who have less may be used to take from those who have more, simply because of this disparity & not because of the existence of any legal debt. b) Intergenerational equity grants equal rights to those who may exist in the future but who are not yet born (44, 45, 46, 47). With this bold new sense of ‘justice’ an assumption is made that the actions of one or more persons currently in existence will somehow reduce the quality of life of one or more persons who do not yet exist! Of course we should all be mindful of our responsibility to care for the environment, but to legally convict a perpetrator when the victim cannot be named, does not exist, & his/her degree of suffering cannot be determined, is an astonishing corruption of traditional legal & moral principles. Yet, this has now become reality. · Under Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 the UN established Local Agenda 21 or LA 21 for implementation by local councils around the world (48, 49, 50, 51,52 ,53 , 54, 55,56 , 57, 58 , 59). Though Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 suggests that “each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations & private enterprises & adopt a local Agenda 21”, in practice the public has largely been kept ignorant of AG 21 & has been denied a democratic choice by councils & governments around Australia. These concepts are currently being used by councils & state governments in Australia to tie up land use with regulations, LEP’s, zonings & green tape so that private landholders are progressively losing control of their land, with resultant loss in land value. · Implementation of LA21 is also promoted by ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to Local Governments for Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, “The task of mobilizing & technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) & national associations of local government.” ICLEI supports the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign & the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” · The UN Tentacles of ICLEI in Local Councils ICLEI “will continue connecting cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies” and ICLEI will “serve as a global entry point for cities and local governments to engage with the United Nations and international and national policy processes” and will “pursue more radical solutions.” ICLEI will “Advocate direct access to climate finance and other funds by local governments and an inversion of climate finance mechanisms to enable the implementation of needs-driven local development.” ICLEI will promote “Management of global environmental goods” such as” Climate, Biodiversity, Water, Food.” In other words, ICLEI intends to convert them to controllable tradeable commodities. ICLEI will promote “Municipal planning and management” or, in other words, they will help councils control land use. ICLEI will promote Local Agenda 21, that is, ICLEI will continue to assist councils to undemocratically implement foreign UN monitored sustainability programs. ICLEI will “Maintain and enhance ecosystems services” and “Promote the global implementation of “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) chapter for Local and Regional Decision Makers” developed under UNEP.” Economic services are defined: “Ecosystem services are the transformation of a set of natural assets (soil, plants and animals, air and water) into things that we value. For example, when fungi, worms and bacteria transform the raw “ingredients” of sunlight, carbon and nitrogen into fertile soil this transformation is an ecosystem service.” ICLEI will also “Continue Local Government climate advocacy through the Local Government Climate Roadmap. Continue supporting and acting as Secretariat of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change.” No need for scientific evidence—no exit strategy if cooling continues. ICLEI will “Develop EcoMobility program modules” to help councils get rid of cars. ICLEI will “Support local governments in introducing a local “happiness index” drawing on the Kingdom of Bhutan’s experiences with replacing the GDP through “Gross National Happiness”. · Many authorities prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21”, using instead terms such as (60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management”, “local environmental plans” or Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (66, 66b, 67, 68, 69). Some local authorities have also changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (66, 66a, 66b). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Local Agenda 21 & the UN Habitat agenda (70, 71, 72, 73, 74). Deliberate deception or failure to fully inform the public is fundamental to the success of the program (75, 76). · Some local authorities overseas are now moving to ban Agenda 21 because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature & the threat it poses to basic human rights, not least, our property rights (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). According to Agenda 21 (77, 78), Australians can only have “improved living standards”, a “more prosperous future” & “managed ecosystems”, if we form a “global partnership”, a partnership of course which will ultimately be under the control of one global authority. By ourselves we are doomed to failure according to Agenda 21 (77, 78). Chapter 8.31 of Agenda 21 states that countries are required to (80 ) “incorporate environmental costs in the decisions of producers & consumers, to reverse the tendency to treat the environment as a ‘free good’ & to pass these costs on to other parts of society, other countries, or to future generations.” This is described in Agenda 21 as a (80) “fundamental objective.” Ratepayers & ordinary Australians will be increasingly required to fund local UN Agenda 21 schemes & ‘green’ programs with growing rates & taxes such as the CO2 tax. However, these funds will be diverted AWAY from local infrastructure projects to further the global ambitions of the UN, not least their stated goals of central World Governance. Agenda 21 & LA 21, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev & Maurice Strong who formed the original Earth Charter, amounts to a global power grab & land grab to control & outlaw private land ownership (81, 82, 83, 84, 85). Agenda 21 & Local Agenda 21 aims to change our lives, that of our children & future descendants, forever. And yet the political promoters of this program have continually refused to expose this program to the light of truth during an election campaign. It is urgent that we restore democracy to our local area & insist that the voting public are permitted to make an informed democratic choice. APPENDIX B Evidence of the Extent to Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without Giving Australians any Democratic Choice · Agenda 21: The political program that has been implemented around Australia by all 3 levels of government for 20 years without giving voters a democratic choice. · Agenda 21: The program that all major political parties have decided, for the past 20 years, is best to implement without including in official party policy. · Agenda 21: The bipartisan supported program which both political parties have consistently decided to exclude from electoral campaigns. · Agenda 21: For 20 years the most universally politically popular and democratically and electorally unpopular program which has been completely ignored by the mainstream media. The undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations Agenda 21 Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such anti-democratic sovereignty undermining foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been implemented by all three levels of government throughout Australia for 20 years. Further, during this 20 year implementation, both major political parties have consistently decided it best to exclude Agenda 21 from their official policies to prevent voters from having a democratic choice. The Australian government has paved the way for the undemocratic infiltration of Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the United Nations Earth Summit by the Howard government followed by ratification by the Keating government and implementation by successive governments (5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ). No doubt because of the undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various experts and government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit about the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21′ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Since many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local level, the federal government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state and local governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of the United Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 , 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ), Queensland (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria (115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151), proceeded to implement Agenda by changes to state legislation and by enforcing local changes at the local council level. In fact, so important were local councils in the global plans of the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a section promoting so called ‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document. Local Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around Australia under the guidance of their respective state governments (46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 , 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159). In Victoria, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) “has established a statewide partnership of councils involved in ecological sustainable development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda 21(LA21) initiatives. A successful first meeting of 17 member councils from around the State was held on 15th August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian Local Sustainability Partnership.” And “By 2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards implementing Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become involved in sustainable development. “ Eric Smith draws attention to some of the regressive effects of AG 21 in Melbourne: “Has anyone noticed that the streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they used to be?…….. That’s because various local councils have been rolling out “energy-efficient” street lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while making our streets significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being done under a United Nations treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the early 1990s, known as Agenda 21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back to the pre-industrial era, a time when you had to wash your clothes in the local river and the average life expectancy was little more than 30.” Smith cites The Municipal Association of Victoria: “Local government has a key role to play in promoting environmental sustainability and taking action that sees the concept incorporated into everyday life. Steps toward this are part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the MAV is helping to push the sustainability agenda further through various council networks, showcase forums and other initiatives.” To further disguise the true goals of Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (160, 161, 162, 163, 163a), while some local authorities have changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (161, 161b, 161a). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda (173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The United Nations has found from 20 years experience that implementation of their global agenda by local authorities has been their most effective strategy (160, 161, 162), especially given the impediments of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, according to the United Nations Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of their global agenda depends largely upon giving more power and recognition to local councils (161): “Empowering lower levels with means to act on their own Progress towards more sustainable outcomes does not need to wait for a hypothetical consensus on what the future of the world should be, or how global affairs should be managed. Actions at lower levels can and should be taken as soon as possible……… Empower lower levels of governments to act as agents of change on their own and try new approaches to sustainability…. Local governments also have a critical role to play as agents of change, as their closeness to their constituents enable them to embark on bold experiments of different paths to sustainability…… Providing appropriate mandates and resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the success or failure of sustainable development will largely depend on decisions and actions that are taken at the local level. This was well recognized by Agenda 21.” But the UN went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments should be empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly with the United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global need to be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down support. In order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance well as between agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more prominent role in global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should recognize that local authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national governments, and with many local authorities governing bigger populations than the 150 smallest UN member states, it would be reasonable if they could get voting rights in the UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability should be based on a multi-level concept of governance and include elected representatives from local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately global levels. In the other direction, it is imperative that decentralization policies are accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial support that local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies for sustainability.” Since the United Nations have issued their directives for governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current Labor government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (166, 168, 169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable development in Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either its UN Agenda 21 origins or the totality of its global goals. APPENDIX C Rewriting the Legal System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the Gaia philosophy of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice Strong. The Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or ecocentric world view where humans become of secondary importance to the environment and ecosystem. In other words, plants come first humans come last. This biocentric or ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our legal and political systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been noted by Henry Lamb in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence.” According to Bosselmann and Taylor in their essay about the Significance of the Earth Charter in International Law, The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric idea of justice”. The Earth Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev , and was adopted by the Australian government in 2005. Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis of NSW laws (32), has now been overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world view where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” In regard to an ecocentric view of property rights, Peter Burdon notes in his thesis, Earth jurisprudence: private property and earth community: “The central argument of this thesis is that the institution of private property reflects an anthropocentric worldview and is contributing to the current environmental crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the concept of Earth community. The thesis first provides an example laws anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical concept of private property. ….It concludes that the dominant rights-based theory of private property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental harm. The second component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific evidence supporting the ecocentric concept of Earth community. This concept argues that human beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also describes the Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects. Assuming that the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis considers how a paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can influence the development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it considers the ‘new story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas Berry. This story describes contemporary scientific insights such as interconnectedness in a narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative paradigm of Earth community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called Earth Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law and advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a hierarchical relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the principle of Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth Community. In regard to the interrelationship between these two legal categories, two points are crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from the Great Law and any law in contravention of this standard is considered a corruption of law and not morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis constructs an alternative concept of private property based on the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. It describes private property as a relationship between members of the Earth community, through tangible or intangible items. To be consistent with the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private property must recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal duties and obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter of a property relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of these considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters of this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from humans to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to support their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is connected to everything else27 – and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense, a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that: ‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue. In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources, a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, ‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’ (s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment” and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.” Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21, and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice. According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change: “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. APPENDIX D Response to Correspondence from the Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell (Please note: My response to the Minister also included the following 3 back up documents not included here: The Australian Government Agenda for the 21st Century – The Invasion of Australia by the United Nations; Local Environmental Plans & the Covert UN Agenda 21 Takeover: Councils, Property Rights & Democracy, What you Should Know) Vivien Leizer|Reception Office of the Hon Jeanette Powell MP Minister for Local Government |Aboriginal Affairs 17/8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne VIC 3002 Phone(03) 9637 8938 | Fax(03) 9637 8920 Email vivien.e.leizer@dse.vic.gov.au Dear Vivien, Thank you for your forwarding the response on behalf of the Minister. I refer the following extremely serious matters to the Minister’s urgent attention. I refer to the following part of the Minister’s response. In spite of this claim, according to the voluminous evidence below and enclosed, your government has clearly been implementing, and permitting to be implemented, the Agenda 21 program for near 20 years, yet you have never declared it as policy. Why? Are you saying you have now banned Agenda 21 from Victoria and you now utilise a local sustainability program with no UN connections? Will you be officially declaring it as policy at the next election or do you prefer to continue implementing it without declaring it as policy? Why? Please refer me to relevant documentation. And do you now reject the Commonwealth Governments Local Agenda 21 guide? And have you now prevented Victorian Councils from importing foreign UN sustainability programs such as Agenda 21? Could you please supply documentation? Will you be taking legal action against the Municipal Association and Victorian councils (below) for implementing Agenda 21 when you have not approved it? Or will you be deregistering them? Let’s cut to the chase here. Unless you can supply current documentation proving you have outlawed or banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported sustainability programs from Victoria, then to suggest your government is not part of the implementation of this program is at best extremely misleading, and at worst, a deliberate untruth designed to deliberately deceive the public. Which is it? Why is it apparently so important to you NOT to openly declare this program as policy? Or will you immediately ban it and all such imported programs? Regards Graham Williamson http://www.regional.org.au/au/soc/2002/4/lyon.htm The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has established a statewide partnership of councils involved in ecological sustainable development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda 21(LA21) initiatives. A successful first meeting of 17 member councils from around the State was held on 15th August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian Local Sustainability Partnership…….In Victoria over the past ten years, about 15–20 local governments have embarked on local processes to engage with their communities and develop a strategic plan to address sustainability. Much of the work of leading councils in this area has developed on the back of the Local Conservation Strategy (LCS) program of the Cain and Kirner Labour governments of the early 90s. During the 6 years of the Kennett government there was no explicit support or acknowledgment of Local Agenda 21 or environment planning initiatives at the local government level. Despite this lack of State support, leading Victorian local governments have developed innovative approaches to sustainability. However, more recently at a State level there has been an explicit focus on ‘sustainability’ with a number of approaches. The Brack’s Labour government elected almost three years ago had an election platform to create a ‘Commissioner for ESD’ and the government has undertaken extensive consultation on the proposed Commissioner. A final government response to these consultations is still being developed. Additionally the Brack’s government has highlighted the importance of triple bottom line (TBL) approaches and sustainability in the ‘Growing Victoria Together’2 policy statement. The still to be released Metro Strategy is to be a major statement by Government on the future of Melbourne, particularly focusing on the growth corridors of outer Melbourne, the urban–rural interface issues and the issues of integrated planning and transport across greater Melbourne. While these major initiatives have still to be launched, many of the programs now being developed by different Victorian government agencies to address sustainability still do not explicitly acknowledge and provide support of local government approaches to ESD such as Local Agenda 21. In fact, a number of recent initiatives could be argued to duplicate or cut across municipal approaches, and in a sense ‘re-invent’ much of the successful local sustainability work already underway through local government. The Liveable Neighbourhood approach attempts to develop a community driven local approach to environmental management, providing a planning tool that is more responsive to community and to arguments for greater local autonomy and control of planning and environment issues.3 Like Local Agenda 21, the NEIP model seeks to tackle sustainability at the local level by creating a form of local community involvement. However, as with the Victorian residential planning system where a Minister or VCAT (administrative tribunal) can override a local planning decision, the EPA is the final approver and arbiter of NEIPs. While the work in developing an NEIP is undertaken by a local council (or other ‘protection agency’) and though a community process, the plan is still at the end of the day sanctioned or ‘approved’ by the State though the EPA. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/40787/73366_1.pdf?sequence=1 Examples of governments’ reluctance to devolve power and control can be found in attempts to implement the Agenda 21 at the local level. For instance, as part of the sustainability discourse, local governments were ascribed the role of promoting better public dialogue to deal with complex environmental issues (Khakee, 2001). At the centre of that rhetoric was the establishment of the Agenda 21 at the local level (Bulkeley, 2000). Khakee (2001) states that the public dialogue advocated with Agenda 21 was a community-wide learning process which could assist in the definition of objectives as well as install institutional capital that would enable the achievement of sustainability. However, a study about the implementation of the Agenda 21 in the Victorian context (Mercer & Jotkowits, 2000) suggests that the fact that local governments’ role changed from being one which governs to a more administrative entity did not result in the devolution of power and control; instead, it contributed to impede the implementation of programmes with a more structural changing character such as the one proposed by the Agenda 21. Governments, particularly at the local scale, appear to prefer to embrace less contentious initiatives such as the ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) (Bulkeley, 2000). While this campaign has established as one of its objectives the strengthening of local communities, its key outcomes are heavily associated with tangible results. These include targets and timetables and related economic benefits rather than more comprehensive measures which would demand better public engagement (Lindseth, 2004). Thus when faced with the challenge of implementing major structural changes and policies similar to the ones advocated by the Agenda 21, local authorities tend to buy time by implementing easier policies (Whittaker, 1997). Additionally, they also tend to do business-as-usual and repack existing programmes under new banners as observed in the case of adoption of the CCPC by American cities (Betsill, 2000). https://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/common/public/documents/8cbc79e88419896- EnvironmentManagementStrategy2006-2011.pdf Council recognised the importance of sound environmental management in the late 1990’s when it adopted its first Environmental Management Strategy- Local Agenda 21 in February 1999……. In 1992 a meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development met in Rio de Janeiro at the Earth Summit. A strategy called Agenda 21 was adopted by over 100 countries to encourage more sustainable development. A Local Agenda 21 is a strategy prepared by government and all sections of the community to establish a vision and to integrate programs for change. The City’s new Environment Management Strategy is Council’s Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to addressing global issues at the local level. http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/content/policies_initiatives/07h_policy78.html Melbourne 2030 – Local sustainability initiatives in Victoria Local Agenda 21 This is based on the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, which aimed to establish a global agenda for social, economic and environmental sustainability. Australia joined with 177 other member nations to adopt Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and subsequently local authorities were encouraged to prepare a ‘Local Agenda 21’ with their communities. Since then, some 100 local governments throughout Australia have made a commitment to Local Agenda 21 or ecologically sustainable development through municipal plans and strategies. By 2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards implementing Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become involved in sustainable development. http://www.gswreportcard.org/_opes/publications/IntegratingRegionalSustainabilityProgram.pdf Local governments across Australia have recognised an integrative role in community sustainability and thus traditionally address local sustainability through the Local Agenda 21 model. Local Agenda 21 encourages all local authorities to enter into dialogue with their communities on developing an action plan for sustainability that seeks to integrate social, ecological and economic sustainability. This approach was reendorsed in 2002 by local government representatives at the Johannesburg World Summit. The next step for those attempting to implement such action plans is to be able to demonstrate that such plans and strategies are making a difference. http://www.markbirrell.com/Vital.htm (Speech on the Agenda 21 infrastructure initiatives for our Capital City – outlining progress in implementing the Liberal/National policy on Melbourne first announced by Mark Birrell on 16th. August, 1991) In this address I wish to outline the aims and objectives of the Coalition Government’s agenda for our capital city. It is important for me first of all to put on record my thanks to the Institute for the work that it has done to assist us in progressing elements of the “Agenda 21″ program. http://www.la.org.au/opinion/011010/back-dark-ages-melbourne%E2%80%99s-streets Has anyone noticed that the streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they used to be?…….. That’s because various local councils have been rolling out “energy-efficient” street lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while making our streets significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being done under a United Nations treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the early 1990s, known as Agenda 21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back to the pre-industrial era, a time when you had to wash your clothes in the local river and the average life expectancy was little more than 30. The Municipal Association of Victoria states on its website: “Local government has a key role to play in promoting environmental sustainability and taking action that sees the concept incorporated into everyday life. Steps toward this are part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the MAV is helping to push the sustainability agenda further through various council networks, showcase forums and other initiatives.” http://www.ccmaknowledgebase.vic.gov.au/resources/COGG.pdf A Local Agenda 21 is an environment strategy prepared by government and all sections of the community to establish a vision and to integrate programs for change. This EMS is therefore Council’s Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to addressing global issues at the local level…. The importance of ESD was highlighted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where agreements aimed at providing a broad framework for global sustainable development such as Agenda 21, to which Australia is a signatory, were signed. The emphasis of Agenda 21 is the achievement of the objectives of ESD at the global scale through action at the local level, which is encapsulated in the statement `think globally, act locally’. A copy of Chapter 28 from the Agenda 21 Charter is attached as Appendix One. In the Australian context, the concept of sustainable development has been incorporated into National policy documents, such as the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the 1995 CommonwealthLocal Government Accord on the Environment. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is a party to these, which place responsibilities on all local Councils to prepare strategies and policies that will foster sound environmental management and sustainable development. ALGA is also a signatory to `The Newcastle Declaration’, which was endorsed at the International Conference – Pathways to Sustainability in June 1997. A copy of this is attached as Appendix Two… This EMS is the City of Greater Geelong’s response to acting locally and will be Geelong’s Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. It is an action-oriented document outlining a range of actions that can be undertaken within the municipality to achieve ecologically sustainable development. Background – the undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations Agenda 21 Graham Williamson Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such anti-democratic sovereignty undermining foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been implemented by all three levels of government throughout Australia for 20 years. Further, during this 20 year implementation, both major political parties have consistently decided it best to exclude Agenda 21 from their official policies to prevent voters from having a democratic choice. The Australian government has paved the way for the undemocratic infiltration of Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the United Nations Earth Summit by the Howard government followed by ratification by the Keating government and implementation by successive governments (5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ). No doubt because of the undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various experts and government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit about the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Since many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local level, the federal government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state and local governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of the United Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 , 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ), Queensland (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria (115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151), proceeded to implement Agenda by changes to state legislation and by enforcing local changes at the local council level. In fact, so important were local councils in the global plans of the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a section promoting so called ‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document. Local Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around Australia under the guidance of their respective state governments (46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 , 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159). To further disguise the true goals of Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (160, 161, 162, 163), while some local authorities have changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (160). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda (173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The United Nations has found from 20 years experience that implementation of their global agenda by local authorities has been their most effective strategy (160, 161, 162), especially given the impediments of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, according to the United Nations Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of their global agenda depends largely upon giving more power and recognition to local councils (161): “Empowering lower levels with means to act on their own Progress towards more sustainable outcomes does not need to wait for a hypothetical consensus on what the future of the world should be, or how global affairs should be managed. Actions at lower levels can and should be taken as soon as possible……… Empower lower levels of governments to act as agents of change on their own and try new approaches to sustainability…. Local governments also have a critical role to play as agents of change, as their closeness to their constituents enable them to embark on bold experiments of different paths to sustainability…… Providing appropriate mandates and resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the success or failure of sustainable development will largely depend on decisions and actions that are taken at the local level. This was well recognized by Agenda 21.” But the UN went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments should be empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly with the United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global need to be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down support. In order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance well as between agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more prominent role in global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should recognize that local authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national governments, and with many local authorities governing bigger populations than the 150 smallest UN member states, it would be reasonable if they could get voting rights in the UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability should be based on a multi-level concept of governance and include elected representatives from local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately global levels. In the other direction, it is imperative that decentralization policies are accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial support that local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies for sustainability.” Since the United Nations have issued their directives for governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current Labor government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (166, 168, 169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable development in Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either its UN Agenda 21 origins or the totality of its global goals. In further support of the global implementation of LA21 is ICLEI , the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to Local Governments for Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (173), “The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government.” And further, according to ICLEI, the UN requested that ICLEI present a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including a mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda 21’.” In fact, ICLEI stated they had two fundamental programs, the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” According to ICLEI (174): “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN Conference on Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a “local Agenda 21.” The final version of Chapter 28 approved at the Earth Summit stipulates that “by 1996 , most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for the(ir) communities.” Following the adoption of the LA21 at the Earth Summit, ICLEI began organizing to ensure that this mandate would be used to advance sustainable development. In particular, ICLEI was concerned that LA21 processes be truly participatory and that they result in new commitments by municipalities and their communities to improve and extend urban services in a sustainable way. To address these concerns, ICLEI established a Local Agenda 21 Initiative with three elements. The Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme was a research and development project which supported a select group of municipalities to design, test, and evaluate planning frameworks for sustainable development. These local frameworks were guided by a general ICLEI framework called “Strategic Services Planning” which addresses many of the organizational and institutional problems related to governance and public sector service delivery in the sustainable development context. With the creation of its Local Agenda 21 Campaign, ICLEI has positioned itself in the growing LA 21 “movement”-which presently counts more than 2,000 communities involved-as a developer and promoter of standards for LA 21 planning. The LA 21 Model Communities Programme established the guiding principles for LA 21 planning and tested a variety of participatory planning tools. The experiences of the MCP participants resulted in the publication, in English, Spanish, and now Turkish, of the ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning(1996). This guide is being increasingly used in university and local government institute training courses around the world. ICLEI also developed with participating municipalities, the Local Agenda 21 Declaration. This declaration consists of a set of milestones and principles which are formally adopted by local councils as their standard for LA 21 planning. In 1998, ICLEI directly assisted more than 180 municipalities in the establishment of LA 21 planning and projects that are consistent with the declaration’s standards. According to the United Nations, Agenda 21 requires that local authorities, as part of their new global role, also enter into partnerships with (175) “relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization.” This has given rise to bottom up movements where local government and local councils are given progressively more power as compared to national governments. The implementation of Agenda 21 is of course, monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (176, 177, 178, 179). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (176, 177, 179). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (179): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Strangely, membership of the CSD which oversees Australia’s compliance with the requirements of Agenda 21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human rights to their own citizens. So at a time when (180) “many of the world’s worst violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in loose coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records of repression”, the United Nations and the Australian government want such countries to judge Australia’s sustainability progress. But as if all this isn’t bad enough, representatives of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Libya in the United Nations Human Rights Council, recently criticised human rights violations in the USA (181,182): “Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.” Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.” North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.” Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.” Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime’s totalitarian nature”(181, 183). APPENDIX E Mr Barry O’Farrell, MP Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, As you can see below, the NSW Attorney General was unwilling to answer simple questions regarding the use of the ecocentric principles of the Agenda 21 program to rewrite and reshape the NSW legal system (as backed up by voluminous evidence of implementation across numerous government departments). I asked the Attorney the following specific questions. Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible? Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW sovereignty? But the Attorney General refused to answer, seeking to avoid the subject of implementation of AG21 by NSW and even go so far as to pretend it is only a Commonwealth matter. I quote: “If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government.” Clearly this is ridiculous. We have a situation in NSW where numerous judges and legal experts acknowledge that the NSW legal system is being restructured to support the ecocentric principles of the United Nations Agenda 21 program and yet we have an Attorney General who accepts no responsibility and seems to profess complete ignorance. Could he possibly be so ignorant, or is he being deliberately misleading or deceptive. Either way, he should be instantly dismissed. Will you be sacking him? Could you please state what action you will be taking and the government’s policy in regard to implementation of the foreign UN Agenda 21 program? Will you be banning it? Or do you intend to continue to implement it throughout the various state departments which have embedded it into policy? And could you please advise who is responsible for overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system and administration of justice in NSW as the Attorney General continually seeks to distance himself from any such responsibility. Regards Graham Williamson From: Public Smith’s Office Email [mailto:Office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012 10:33 AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Dear Mr Williamson If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Mr Barry O’Farrell Premier Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr O’Farrell, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 5. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 6. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 7. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX F Correspondence with NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker. Ms Robyn Parker, MP Minister for the Environment Level 32 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Re response from Ms Danielle Lautrec MD12/3442; MD12/4303 Dear Ms Parker, Thank you for your response, courtesy of Ms Lautrec. As you know, my correspondence (included below) was about various aspects of Agenda 21, none of which Ms Lautrec was able to respond to. To quote Ms Lautrec: The claim that “the decision for Australia to commit to the principals of Agenda 21 was a decision made by the Federal Government” is of course, completely false if you are attempting to deny the NSW state government, and Local Governments, are implementing this program. This statement is at best, extremely and deceptively misleading, and at worst, it is deliberate deception and denial of the facts. Do you condone this dishonesty? Are you denying that both the NSW Government, and Local Councils, are implementing this program and have been doing so for nearly two decades? As you of course realise, the Federal Government is reliant upon State and Local Governments to implement the many local requirements of Agenda 21. Knowing this, why would you feel the need to pretend it was just a “decision made by the Federal Government” and imply it has nothing to do with state and local governments? Let me remind you of some of the issues you failed to address from my earlier correspondence (below). First let me stress that my enquiry is about the 500 page foreign United Nations designed and monitored Agenda 21 program. As I stated previously: The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Do you approve of this adoption of this foreign program and its use to penalise NSW residents? Will you be including this program in official Liberal Party Policy or do you prefer to continue to implement it while excluding it from policy? I continued in my earlier communication: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Even though these matters are of vital importance to residents of NSW you expressed no concern whatsoever and failed to advise what action you would take to protect the sovereignty of NSW and the rights of NSW land owners. Why? I continued: Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked: Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? But you once again chose to completely ignore this question, apparently preferring NOT to offer NSW land owners any such protections. Is this correct? When will you take decisive action to protect the rights of NSW residents? I continued: In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 8. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). You were unable to supply even one NSW Government notice alerting residents to these facts. Why? 9. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. Once again you were unable to supply any such documentation. Why? 10. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? You were completely unable to confirm that you had offered residents any such local program at all, your only option being to force upon NSW residents a foreign (UN) designed and monitored program. Why? As is perfectly clear, the above issues are of vital importance, yet your preferred response was to ignore all of them. When can I expect a meaningful response? Regards Graham Williamson Ms Robyn Parker, MP Minister for the Environment Level 32 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Ms Parker, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 11. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 12. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 13. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX G Correspondence with NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Dear Mr Williamson (final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012 7:20 AM To: Public Smith’s Office Email Subject: TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no response to the vitally important issues raised in the below email. When can I expect a meaningful response? Is your continuing non-response indicative of your complete lack of concern about these issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012 9:18 AM To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Smith, The below email remains unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:25 PM To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; ‘epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au’ Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au; ‘kuringgai@parliament.nsw.gov.au’ Subject: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In response to my previous communication below, which you referred to other Ministers, you stated “The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice.” Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible? Incidentally, since as a result of my earlier correspondence you have declared that the matters I referred to, including the overseeing of the direction of the NSW legal system, has nothing to do with you, I have cc’d the Premier. Previously I stated as follows. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW sovereignty? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). I then asked: Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? You decided to completely ignore this legal question, preferring instead to refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Education. Why? Do you feel you are not qualified to answer legal questions? If you are not responsible for overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system please explain why and refer me to the person who is responsible. I provide further documentary evidence below and ask again: Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? Justice Preston and others confirm that the anthropocentric basis of the NSW legal system is being undermined so the system is being converted into a virtual plants come first humans come last ecocentric system. You are overseeing this process. Are you directly responsible for these changes? Do you approve of these changes? If not, what will you do to restore anthropocentrism in the NSW legal system? REWRITING THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF PLANTS & THE ENVIRONMENT Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the Gaia philosophy of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice Strong. The Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or ecocentric world view where humans become of secondary importance to the environment and ecosystem. In other words, plants come first humans come last. This biocentric or ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our legal and political systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been noted by Henry Lamb in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence.” According to Bosselmann and Taylor in their essay about the Significance of the Earth Charter in International Law, The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric idea of justice”. The Earth Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev , and was adopted by the Australian government in 2005. Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis of NSW laws (32), has now been overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world view where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” In regard to an ecocentric view of property rights, Peter Burdon notes in his thesis, Earth jurisprudence: private property and earth community: “The central argument of this thesis is that the institution of private property reflects an anthropocentric worldview and is contributing to the current environmental crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the concept of Earth community. The thesis first provides an example laws anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical concept of private property. ….It concludes that the dominant rightsbased theory of private property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental harm. The second component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific evidence supporting the ecocentric concept of Earth community.. This concept argues that human beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also describes the Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects. Assuming that the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis considers how a paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can influence the development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it considers the ‘new story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas Berry. This story describes contemporary scientific insights such as interconnectedness in a narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative paradigm of Earth community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called Earth Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law and advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a hierarchical relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the principle of Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth Community. In regard to the interrelationship between these two legal categories, two points are crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from the Great Law and any law in contravention of this standard is considered a corruption of law and not morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis constructs an alternative concept of private property based on the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. It describes private property as a relationship between members of the Earth community, through tangible or intangible items. To be consistent with the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private property must recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal duties and obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter of a property relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of these considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters of this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from humans to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to support their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is connected to everything else27 – and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense, a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that: ‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue. In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources, a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, ‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’ (s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment” and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.” Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21, and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice. According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change: “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. You are the Minister responsible for justice. What do you intend to do regarding this unjust treatment and betrayal of NSW residents? And do you intend to continue to support the insidious undemocratic conversion of the NSW legal system to an ecocentric system? If not, what action will you take to prevent this and when? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your recent correspondence to the office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Hon Greg Smith SC MP. The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Therefore, we have forwarded your correspondence to; 1. The Hon. Robyn Parker MP Minister for the Environment 2. The Hon. Brad Hazzard MP Minister for Planning and Infrastructure &Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW 3. The Hon. Adrian Piccoli MP Minister for Education 4. The Hon. Don Page MP Minister for Local Government I trust your correspondence will receive attention as soon as possible… Kind regards Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import a sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? Agenda 21, which your government continues to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77)… It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX H Correspondence with Minister for Local Government, Don Page Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have yet to receive a response to the issues below. Could you please advise your time frame for a meaningful response to these vitally important issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 8:04 PM To: office@page.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: ‘Anne Rinaudo’ Subject: RE: Agenda item 21 Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In my previous emails (see below) I asked about your policy in regard to Agenda 21(1, 1a) and its implementation at the local government level. I also provided voluminous back up documentation showing the implementation of Agenda by the NSW government, and by local governments of NSW ( 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), none of which was refuted by you. Given the fact that the Department of Local Government is overseeing the implementation of Agenda 21 by local Councils throughout NSW ( 24 , 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) under your guidance, I was absolutely astonished to receive the following response from you: “Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the matters you raise in relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in Alabama are not issues which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister for Local Government and Minister for the North Coast.” Are you deliberately, for some reason, attempting to avoid discussing your policy regarding implementation of Agenda 21 at the local government level in NSW? If so. Why? Why would you seek to abandon ministerial responsibility for the local government portfolio in such a fashion? Even the Attorney General’s Department has advised me it is your responsibility so your abandonment of your ministerial responsibility raises serious questions indeed. Given your responsibility for the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level I also drew your attention to the undemocratic and foreign nature of this program: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked: Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 14. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 15. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 16. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? Although you are overseeing the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level you not only expressed no concern whatsoever about the above matters, you even chose to pretend implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is not your responsibility. Why? I further noted that according to various experts government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Will you be promoting a more honest and open policy in regard to educating the public about Agenda 21? As you realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is also monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (47, 48, 49, 50). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (47, 48, 50). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (50): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (51): “4. Agenda 21 called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date not later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made towards meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are plans for expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts on farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX: OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your answers (i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are ordered on a scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 – clear and apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no achievements at all 1 – worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4] Development of a national policy or strategy on integrated land management [4] Development of policies that have encouraged sustainable land use and management of land resources [5] Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use and management [4] Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3] Institutional set-up for monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and adoption of market-based measures [4] Information compilation and land capability analysis [5] Identification of data gaps [5] Identification of major challenges and issues related to the implementation of integrated land use and management approach at nation-wide level 82 2. What level of importance is attached to the different functions of land in your country? Please provide qualitative ranking of the major functions or characteristics of land (i.e. give a rating to every box) on a scale from 1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 – Highly important 2 – only slightly important 1 – not important at all Ranking Major functions/characteristics of land [1] Food security [4] Rural development [4] Rural viability [4] Environmental sustainability (protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved policies and institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and equity [4] Social cohesion” Will you be publicising the above facts and educating the public (and councils) about the full details and end goals of Local Agenda 21? Will the government be officially including Agenda 21 in government policy or do you prefer to continue to implement this program through local governments without including it as a policy? Regards Graham Williamson From: Anne Rinaudo [mailto:Anne.Rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 9:51 AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson, Please accept my apologies, unfortunately the email reply to your request was mistakenly sent to an incorrect email address. The reply is below. Kind regards Anne Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast _____________________________________________ Email: anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily those of the office of the Minister. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Public Page’s Office Email Sent: Monday, 6 August 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘grahamw@iprimus.com.au’ Subject: Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the matters you raise in relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in Alabama are not issues which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister for Local Government and Minister for the North Coast. Kind regards Anne Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast _____________________________________________ Email: anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 APPENDIX I Correspondence with the NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no response to the vitally important issues raised in the below email. When can I expect a meaningful response? Is your continuing non-response indicative of your complete lack of concern about these issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012 9:11 AM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012 7:31 PM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 7:16 AM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Subject: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson UNANSWERED EMAIL OF 29th JUNE Dear Sir, I am alarmed at the pervasive infiltration of foreign UN Agenda 21 (1) associated programs at all levels of state and local government in NSW (3, 4, 5, 6 , 7 ,8 , 9 , 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61) and the continuing refusal of the NSW government to reverse this undemocratic trend. Rather than inform Australians about the UN origins of Agenda 21 or the intended radical end results of the total agenda, government officials often seek to conceal the truth by using terms such as (2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (28): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit is endemic throughout Australia also (29): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Agenda 21 and LA 21, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong who formed the Earth Charter, amounts to a socialistic global land grab to control and outlaw private land ownership (62, 63, 64, 65, 66). Those behind the United Nations global sustainability push believe more in the rights of animals, plants, and people not yet born, than they do about everyday Australians and their families. Do you support this gaia driven biocentric philosophy which forms the basis of Agenda 21? But, most conspicuously, as with all these United Nations motivated visions for the future, Commonwealth, State, and local governments, seem to have abandoned any concept of democracy, freedom, and ensuring individual rights. Our elected representatives are spending billions of dollars on protecting the rights of plants, animals, and people not yet born. At the same time they are attacking the rights and freedoms of real people and real families. What sort of vision do we have if we do not include exact details of our plans to protect freedom and democracy? Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded by Australian governments acting as agents of the UN against the interests of the Australian people, all under the guise of environmental concerns (68 ): “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Do you support this UN driven process of using environmental concerns to control & restrict the rights of land owners? In Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to administer and implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. According to Chapter 39 countries should ensure they cooperate with the requirements of Agenda 21 as set out by the United Nations (67 ): “The parties to international agreements should consider procedures and mechanisms to promote and review their effective, full and prompt implementation. To that effect, States could, inter alia: (a) Establish efficient and practical reporting systems on the effective, full and prompt implementation of international legal instruments; (b) Consider appropriate ways in which relevant international bodies, such as UNEP, might contribute towards the further development of such mechanisms.” Strangely, membership of the CSD which will oversee Australia’s compliance with the requirements of Agenda 21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human rights to their own citizens. According to Windsor (110) “many of the world’s worst violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in loose coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records of repression.” Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council, It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime’s totalitarian nature”(111, 112). In fact, the CSD is comprised of many undemocratic totalitarian countries (112, 113). These countries will be overseeing Australia’s progress. Do you approve of this and why haven’t you advised the people of NSW? Meanwhile, Australian schoolchildren are being ‘educated’ in line with the instructions contained within the United Nations global ecological sustainability program ( 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 90 ). These educational initiatives are in response to the United Nations Agenda 21 program and their global sustainability requirements (74 ). According to John Aquilina (69): “The New South Wales Government is a world leader in supporting environmental education in schools, with particular attention being given to Agenda 21, a global policy outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit. Agenda 21 has been recognised by the New South Wales Government as the basis for an internationally agreed course of action towards sustainability. This has led to legislation in a number of areas, including the Protection of the Environment Amendment (Environmental Education) Act, 1998.” Do you support this UN driven indoctrination of schoolchildren? Not only have the people of NSW never been given a democratic choice about the NSW government’s implementation of UN based Agenda 21 associated initiatives, but from the evidence above it is clear there have even been attempts to deliberately conceal the true UN origin and goals of the program by the use of more innocuous names. This persistent refusal of the government to properly inform Australians about Agenda 21 and the United Nations global sustainability campaign is not only in breach of fundamental freedoms and the ability to make an informed democratic choice, it is also in direct violation of the basic human right to participate in elections and political processes. These rights (75) “are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).” The right to participate in Agenda 21 and other political or public policy processes (which of course, should also include the right not to participate – but that is another matter!) includes the right to be correctly and fully informed, as is noted by Picolotti (76): “Informative participation Informative participation implies an exchange of information and knowledge on certain issues of concern to the community. The community provides information to the state and vice versa, enabling each to make proper decisions about how they administer resources, which leads to more optimal resource management.” Successive Australian & NSW governments have not only been guilty of gross negligence in refusing to fully inform Australians of the long term goals and totality of the Agenda 21 and sustainability initiatives, but further, they are also guilty of consistently violating fundamental human rights relating to the right to participate. Not only have they failed to inform the voting public of the totality and long term goals of the UN Agenda 21 sustainability initiatives, but further, there is even evidence that attempts have been made to conceal the truth by the use of innocuous descriptive labels the aim of which is to distance Australian initiatives from the their UN global origins. But this violation of human rights is still continuing as the government still refuses to publicise the totality and goals of their agenda, thereby actively preventing Australians from making an informed democratic choice. Do you continue to support this removal of democratic choice and refusal to clearly spell out the UN origin of the Agenda 21 program? Or will you follow the overseas precedent (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89) and ban UN gaia driven (94) Agenda 21 associated programs until residents of NSW have been granted a genuine informed democratic choice? Currently the rights of NSW residents, particularly landowners, are under attack on so many fronts and yet the NSW government appears to be part of the problem, with their UN driven gaia motivated legal pursuit of landowners, rather than part of the solution (91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109). Will you change this? Will you take immediate action to protect landowners and all Australians from intrusive UN driven ‘sustainability’ programs? Will you ban such programs and show allegiance to NSW residents by enabling them to determine their own environmental future or do you feel our future should be determined by foreign undemocratic agencies in a process which is overseen by foreign dictators? Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX J Transferring Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment: Submission to the NSW Government BioBanking review 1. Putting a Price on Nature: Morality & Responsibility The NSW government seeks to put a price on nature, a price on every blade of grass, every animal, every insect, even microrganisms and the ecosystem itself. Since the ecosystem will be valued and revalued at the whim of government, this of course, includes every rock, leaf, log, or dead tree. A dead tree or log harbouring termites after all, is an important part of the ecosystem. And the government wants the power to control the value of all these components of nature. This clearly is a full out frontal attack on private property, the rights of all land holders (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). It is unjust, immoral, and fundamentally antiAustralian. This aspect has recently been addressed by David Leyonhjelm in an article entitled (3) “Property rights gone for the ‘general good’.” According to Leyonhjelm (3): WHEN the great William Blackstone codified the English common law in the 1760s, he placed great significance on property rights. In his view: ‘So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.’ Although they are among the inheritors of the common law, farmers have watched in dismay as their property rights have dwindled in the face of government encroachments, always defended as for the “general good of the whole community”. The rain that falls on their property may now comprise part of the water rights owned by someone else. There are major restrictions on the subdivision of land for lifestyle blocks. Riparian rights and biodiversity corridors reduce property options. Mineral rights are owned by the Crown, allowing others to explore without permission. Justin Jefferson has also acknowledged the threat to private property posed by the NSW Native Vegetation Act (2): “For starters, here in the Monaro the overwhelming effect of the Act in practice is actually to promote the spread and restrict the fighting of African lovegrass. This means more weeds and less native vegetation, less biodiversity and less sustainability. So the Act is selfdefeating. It can’t justified be even in its own terms. But it gets worse. The Act simply 1: ASSUMES that all property should and does belong to the state; 2: ASSUMES that the state knows best in all and any decision-making; and it; 3: ASSUMES that social co-operation based on force and threats and central planning is intrinsically better than social co-operation based on consent and freedom and property. All these assumptions are wrong and offensive. They have been disproved both in theory and in practice over and over and over again at enormous cost in human suffering. The Act reverses the onus of proof: you’re guilty until proven innocent. It authorises intrusive search without a warrant. It abolishes the right to silence: it compels you to incriminate yourself. It authorises evidence by executive decree. It effectively confiscates freehold property rights without compensation in breach of the Constitution. The Act is oppressive and abusive.” As has recently been pointed out by Lorraine Finlay (8), the government attack on private property rights, which is occurring on many fronts, is completely at odds with frequent public statements about human rights or individual rights. The fundamental importance of private property rights in regard to human freedom have also been noted by Finlay (8): “the protection of property rights has evolved to mean owners have the right to obtain benefits from their property, including the right to put it to productive use and to dispose of it through sale”8. Property rights therefore encompass “the right to own property, the right to dispose of property and the right to exclude others”9. Since that time leading philosophers and political thinkers have emphasized the link between private property rights and the protection of individual liberty. This was noted by 4 Henry Maine, who claimed that the history of individual property rights and history of civilization “cannot be disentangled”11. Similarly, John Adams observed that12: ‘Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty … The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of god, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist’. This paper argues that private property rights are just as important today as in the past. The link between property rights and individual liberty remains relevant in the modern context, and the foundations for both individual freedoms and economic security may be found in private property rights. In relation to this point, it has been emphasized that19: ‘Without private property rights there is no way to check the power of the state over the individual. When the state gains control over private property rights the ability to create wealth stagnates or even declines, thereby creating poverty and misery rather than freedom and wealth’. There is a well established causal link between property rights and higher standards of living21, with the ownership of private property motivating individuals ‘to improve the productivity and value of assets in the realization that family and designated heirs may benefit from such endeavour’22. In short, ‘*the evidence is irrefutable that the protection of property rights is the key to wealth accumulation and secure and stable societies’23.” But in spite of the fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW government is busily involved in plotting against landholders and tying their properties up in so much green tape they become unusable and worthless (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). One case in point is the disgraceful case of Peter Spencer (8). As Finlay indicates, these problems have been noted by the Productivity Commission (8): “In the 2004 Inquiry Report into the Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations the Productivity Commission concluded that while the retention, management and rehabilitation of native vegetation and biodiversity were important objectives, “existing regulatory approaches are not as effective as they could be in promoting these objectives and impose significant costs”64. In particular, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the clearing restrictions had been compromised, that “perverse environmental outcomes” often resulted and that landholders “… are being prevented from developing their properties, switching to more profitable land use, and from introducing costsaving innovations. Arbitrary reclassification of regrowth vegetation as remnant and restrictions on clearing woodland thickening in some jurisdictions are reducing yields and areas that can be used for agricultural production”65 Since the Zimbabwe experience shows exactly what happens when private property rights are lost (8), it is up to all Australian governments to respect private property rights, respect landowners, and respect freedom which is so fundamental to all Australians (8): “If we are not able to build an environment in which the general public, politicians and government bureaucrats are all encouraged to respect and value private property rights, then we will continue to see the gradual erosion of property rights regardless of any changes that may be made to the surrounding legal framework.” The moral acceptability of putting a price on everything (17, 18, 19) including water and the air we exhale, is clearly paving the way for putting a price on every component of nature, commonly referred to as ecological economics (20, 21). Of course the idea that a monetary value can be placed upon every animal, plant, insect, microorganism, and ecosystem is not only ridiculous, it is morally reprehensible and scientifically impossible. In fact, reducing nature to a monetary value is necessarily a move to devalue nature and give humans the ability to decide the absolute and relative worth of not only living things, but also systems. It is fundamentally and intrinsically hypocritical and contradictory to suggest that nature will become more valuable, and more readily conserved, by devaluing it and defining it in terms of human currency. According to Monbiot (20): “The UK government’s assessment of the “value” of nature is pure reductionist gobbledegook, dressed up in the language of objectivity and reason but ascribing prices to emotional responses: prices, which, for all the high-falutin’ language it uses, can only be arbitrary. It has been constructed by people who feel safe only with numbers, who must drag the whole world into their comfort zone in order to feel that they have it under control…………The second problem is that it delivers the natural world into the hands of those who would destroy it. Picture, for example, a planning enquiry for an opencast coal mine. The public benefits arising from the forests and meadows it will destroy have been costed at £1m per year. The income from opening the mine will be £10m per year. No further argument needs to be made. The coal mine’s barrister, presenting these figures to the enquiry, has an indefeasible case: public objections have already been addressed by the pricing exercise; there is nothing more to be discussed. When you turn nature into an accounting exercise, its destruction can be justified as soon as the business case comes out right. It almost always comes out right……………….This is the machine into which nature must now be fed. The National Ecosystem Assessment hands the biosphere on a plate to the construction industry. It’s the definitive neoliberal triumph: the monetisation and marketisation of nature, its reduction to a tradeable asset.” The cost of calculating the value of nature seems incomprehensible. It has recently been calculated that in Canberra the planting of 400,000 trees has had (22) “a combined energy reduction, pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration value of US$20–67 million during the period 2008–2012,” or around 11c daily per tree. Whether this allows for the tree having a bad day (or year) from attack by insects is not clear. Clearly there is no moral or scientific basis for reducing nature to a marketable commodity. We have seen that there has been an attack on private property rights by the NSW government as they busily use the environment to tie up landholders. But is their environmental zealotry genuine, or is it just a deliberate devious land grab? What ways has the NSW government legislated to protect the rights of land owners? 2. The Effectiveness of Biobanking or Market Mechanisms for Maintaining or Improving Biodiversity Everyone is concerned about the environment, but is the NSW government drive to control the land of private landowners really about the environment? Historically, as noted by David Leyonhjelm (3), evidence of the environmental benefits of government policies are lacking: “The perverse thing about all this is that there is plenty of evidence to show the environment does better when it is in private hands, away from the tentacles of government. We saw that very clearly in the difference in environmental quality between the former Communist countries and the west when communism collapsed. Here at home we see uncontrolled weeds and feral animals in our government-owned national parks. Quite simply, government control is incompatible with the promotion of environmental values. And as Blackstone would say, the government should stop violating private property”. Indeed, there is no argument that historically it is the governments at all levels who must shoulder the responsibility for degradation of the environment for it is they who have formulated the policies, permitted land development, and organised land planning and land use strategies. In fact, the biodiversity loss and environmental situation today is the result of present and previous government policies (9). Not only have governments presided over wilful habitat destruction and poor town planning, but also they are responsible for most of the enormous environmental damage and biodiversity loss caused by invasive species (9, 10, 11, 12). According to McFadyen (11): “In the 200 years since the arrival of Europeans, over 28,000 foreign plants have been brought to Australia, most deliberately imported for pasture, horticulture or as ornamentals. Their impact is enormous – invasive plants are the main threat to 45% of threatened and endangered species and ecosystems in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006), and the cost to Australian agriculture is at least $3.5bn per year in lost production and control costs (Sinden et al. 2004). Further, according to the the Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2008 (12), “Invasive species and pathogens represent one of the most potent, persistent and widespread threats to Australian biodiversity.” But what have successive government’s done about this? And how is it envisaged that biobanking and other market schemes will reverse or prevent this major threat? Clearly the matter of invasive species alone exposes the whole biobanking/biodiversity marketing scheme as a fraud, somewhat synonymous with the idea that we can control climate by economic instruments. This is highly significant because if environmental policies or biobanking are to be just and have a sound moral basis then the system must be firmly based upon science, and be cost effective, and responsibility for environmental damage must be correctly attributed . The matter of historical responsibility has been considered of the utmost importance when it comes to climate change and a clear precedent has been established in this regard (13, 14, 15, 16). Historical responsibility in fact, because it permits a cumulative assessment of responsibility (13), “is one of the main lines of argument underlying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for climate change, and the polluter pays principle more generally.” In fact the cumulative aspect is far more important when it comes to biodiversity loss as the permanence and irreversibility are not disputed, unlike CO2. Whether from the point of view of habitat destruction or invasive species, there is absolutely no doubt that all 3 levels of government share most of the responsibility for cumulative biodiversity loss in Australia and therefore, in keeping with a moral and just conservation program, financial penalties should be targeted accordingly. But has biobanking or biodiversity trading been environmentally effective? What are the expectations? Given the above, it is hardly surprising that biobanking or biodiversity trading does not have a history of positive environmental outcomes (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). As has been pointed out by the Productivity Commission (28): The high scientific uncertainty associated with biodiversity conservation and salinity mitigation could mean that market creation schemes for these ecosystem services are subject to considerable sovereign risk. In particular, there may be a high probability that the property right associated with a market creation scheme would need to be changed in the future because of new scientific discoveries. This uncertainty could diminish the value of the property right and hence the likelihood that market creation would be effective. We use the term market creation to refer to government intervention to indirectly form markets for ecosystem services whose ownership cannot be enforced. Such intervention involves the definition of a new property right that is both linked to an ecosystem service and can be exchanged for reward. A property right is an entitlement to use a particular good or service in a certain way. For example, the property right for a car entitles its owner to use the car, prevent others from using it, and to sell it to another party.” So the government seeks to redefine every creature, plant or ecosystem as separate property rights and then value, revalue, or devalue each or all at will. But as has been pointed out by the Clarence Environment Centre (29), although scientists have predicted a loss of at least 30% of world diversity due to climate change, “BioBanking proposes to lock landowners into contracts that demand biodiversity values be ‘maintained or improved’ in perpetuity. At the same time it is made clear that: “If participants fail to meet their commitments under the scheme, penalties can be applied”. According to the CEC these requirements are bordering on fraud. The CEC further notes that biobanking is structured to favour developers (29) a view confirmed by Ian Cohen (30), and therefore will result in a net loss of biodiversity (29). Indeed, it must be admitted that the Act is user friendly to developers, the purpose of biobanking being to (31) “streamline biodiversity assessment for development”. Biobanking even offers developers (31) immunity from legal appeals in the Land and Environment Court and (31) “certainty for developers and consent authorities with respect to meeting their threatened species responsibilities.” Landowners however, once locked into biobanking, agree to surrender extensive control of their property forever and this encumbrance, since it is automatically passed to any new land owner, would be expected to devalue the land (31): “Biobanking agreements are registered on the land title and run with the land to bind future landowners. The agreements create a permanent legal obligation for the owner to manage the land either passively or actively, depending on the number of credits sold from the site. Agreements also restrict development, commercial and industrial uses and certain other activities on the land that may have a detrimental effect on biodiversity.” So sweeping and pervasive are these powers that land owners even lose control of the rocks and dead trees on their property (31). Since the emphasis is on the eco “system” rather than individual components of the system, the virtual loss of title surrendered by the land owner is considerable. And if the landholder fails to comply with these requirements there are a range of severe penalties, including an application to have the land title transferred to the Minister under Section 1270 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (31, 32, 33 ). The transfer of land title under Section 1270 is possible under the following circumstances (33): “(3) An order may be made under this section only where the Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities: (a) that there is a serious risk to the biodiversity values protected by the biobanking agreement because of the contravention by the person, or (b) that there is no reasonable likelihood of the person complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement, or (c) that the person has previously committed frequent contraventions of the biobanking agreement, or (d) that the person has persistently and unreasonably delayed complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement. (4) If the Court makes the order requested, the Court may impose such conditions on the conveyance or transfer of the land as the Court thinks fit. (5) Where land is conveyed or transferred to the Minister, or to a person or body nominated by the Minister, in accordance with an order made under this section, the consideration payable by the Minister, person or body, is to be determined in the same way as the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 in respect of an acquisition of land, but is to be reduced by the amount that, in the opinion of the Court, is equivalent to any outstanding liability of the person to the Minister arising out of contravention of the biobanking agreement. (6) In calculating the consideration payable as referred to in subsection (5), the value of the land is to be determined having regard to the fact that it is subject to a biobanking agreement, and any increase in the value of the land attributable to anything done or omitted to be done in contravention of the biobanking agreement is to be disregarded.” Already these proposals are tying up private land, particularly in rural areas. According to Damien Rogers, these proposals are well advanced in Eurobodalla Shire (36): “Biodiversity Certification is basically a forced version of Biobanking. Few know about it, and fewer understand it. But it is essentially a Development Rights Credit Trading Scheme! Trading development “Credits” taken from land owners, without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to notify owners. Just like Carbon Trading, only this time designed with the cooperation of all three levels of Government (and environmental groups). It is to be run by councils, the DOP and a State Bureaucracy, called the OEH (Office of Environment and Heritage)………..First councils use the “Standard Template LEP” to cover undeveloped Urban and Rural land with numerous restrictive “Overlay” maps, and new Environmental zonings, which severely restrict or stop development. As mentioned, in our Shire, these covered at least 80% (and probably more) of all the private land area of the Shire. (which is already approximately 90% state forest and national parks) Councils can then earn 25% Development Credits for land they restrict in this way. Then when owners on mainly Rural land want to build something, it triggers expensive studies, and funnels most owners into unavoidable “Perpetual Voluntary Agreements”. The more council or the OEH restrict the land, the more Credits they can earn, for perpetual agreements its more like 90%. These “agreements” must then be attached to the owners title deeds, and may now restrict the land forever…….. So here is the real motive. Council, with the DOP and OEH can now control and profit from virtually all future land releases and development. As, for example, unlocking an area of undeveloped urban land, will now likely require a perpetual agreement, and/or that it to be “Biocertified” first. This involves packaging an urban area with a nearby rural area. “Taking” credits from the rural owners (now called “offset” lands). Without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to personally notify owners. Then compelling Urban land owners and developers to bargain with council or the OEH for these Development “Credits”, which were ‘taken’ from others. The deals councils and the OEH make will be in confidential contracts. As developers have pointed out, this will make the cost of new urban land very expensive. But as most Rural blocks will loose their building entitlements, or be sterilized with environmental overlays and zonings, there will be little competition or alternatives for future potential buyers. Giving Councils and the OEH total control, and in effect, a massive monopoly control over urban land development, for their own benefit! Another big plus for Councils and the OEH, is that any urban or rural land they sterilize will then plummet in value.” The suggestion that biobanking schemes may be compulsory, completely and permanently locking up the land of private landholders, is absolutely alarming. Clearly we need a broad ranging enquiry into this exploitation of environmental concerns for short sighted self-interested political agendas. There must be extensive community consultation regarding environmental marketing schemes and biobanking. While the powers over the private landholder are incredibly extensive, the same cannot be said for developers. Under Section 127U and 127S of the Act mining or petroleum activities are specifically exempted, allowing mining companies to trash the environment at will, and existing biobank contracts may be cancelled without compensation (34, 35): “Nothing in this Division: (a) prevents the grant of a mining authority or petroleum title in respect of a biobank site in accordance with the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 , or (b) prevents the carrying out, on or in respect of a biobank site, of any activity authorised by a mining authority or petroleum title in accordance with the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 .” 127S Prospecting and mining on biobank sites (1) The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, vary or terminate a biobanking agreement without the consent of the owner of the biobank site if a mining authority or petroleum title is granted in respect of the biobank site and the Minister is of the opinion that the activity authorised by the mining authority or petroleum title: (a) will adversely affect any management actions that may be carried out on the land under the biobanking agreement, or (b) will adversely affect the biodiversity values protected by the biobanking agreement. (2) If the Minister varies or terminates the biobanking agreement under this section, the Minister may, by order in writing to the holder of the mining authority or petroleum title, direct the holder to retire biodiversity credits of a number and class (if any) specified by the Minister within a time specified in the order. (3) A direction may be given to a person under subsection (2) only if biodiversity credits have already been created in respect of management actions that were carried out or proposed to be carried out on the biobank site and have been transferred to any person. (4) The maximum number of biodiversity credits that the holder of the mining authority or petroleum title may be required to retire under the direction is the number of biodiversity credits that have been created in respect of the biobank site. (5) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction under subsection (2). Maximum penalty: 10,000 penalty units. (6) It is not an excuse for a failure to comply with a direction under this section that the person who is the subject of the direction does not, at the time the direction is given, hold a sufficient number of biodiversity credits to comply with the direction. Note: If the person who is the subject of the direction does not hold a sufficient number of credits to comply with the direction, the person may obtain the required number by purchasing them. (7) A court that convicts a person of an offence under subsection (5) may, in addition to or in substitution for any pecuniary penalty for the offence, by order direct the person to retire, in accordance with this Part, biodiversity credits of a specified number and class (if applicable) within a time specified in the order and, if the person does not hold sufficient biodiversity credits to comply with the direction, to acquire the necessary biodiversity credits for the purpose of retiring them. (8) The owner of a biobank site is not entitled to any compensation as a result of the variation or termination of an agreement under this section. (9) Subsection (8) does not affect any right to compensation the owner may have under the Mining Act 1992 , the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 or any other legislation in respect of the grant of the mining authority or petroleum title. (10) In this section: “conviction” includes the making of an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 . CONCLUSION The fact that Biobanking/biodiversity trading schemes are primarily marketing schemes and are therefore NOT primarily intended to generate positive environmental outcomes is evidenced by the following fundamental facts. 1. These schemes completely avoid targeting one of the main causes of biodiversity loss, namely the problem of invasive species. 2. Instead of addressing the causes of cumulative biodiversity loss and pursuing those responsible (governments), responsibility for biodiversity loss is shifted AWAY from those responsible and transferred to current landholders. 3. The underlying philosophy that nature will be conserved by devaluing it and reducing it to a marketable commodity is completely immoral, unjust, and devoid of any semblance of common sense or logic. 4. Biobanking is proposed as a scheme to “streamline” development and prevent legal appeals to the Land & Environment Court. 5. The Act specifically empowers mining companies and oil companies to avoid any environmental responsibilities. The true spirit and essence of environmentalism is completely betrayed by biodiversity trading schemes which are a direct attack on private property rights and an attempt to transfer to government the power to control and put a price on nature. We need to get back to genuine environmentalism and stop exploiting environmentalism for personal or political gain and short sighted self-interested agendas (21): “The scientistic and self-referential controversies in which ecological economists engage drain away the moral power that once sustained environmentalism. This moral power may return if environmentalists employ science not to prescribe goals to society but to help society to achieve goals it already has. Environmentalists may then shape the natural environment of the future rather than model and monetize the environment of the past.” The cost effectiveness of biobanking is a completely unknown quantity. Though I have written to the Department seeking this information I have received no response whatsoever, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Clearly the complete costs of this scheme must be publicised and there must be complete transparency and accountability. The scheme should be discontinued until this is done. Recently there has been an erosion of private property rights under the guise of short sighted self-interested government promoted environmentalism. This exploitation of environmentalism must cease. Property rights should be restored by extensive consultation with landholders. Since the government has no mandate for biodiversity trading schemes such schemes should cease until such a mandate is obtained. Not only has there been no mandate, the level of public ignorance about these schemes is alarming and must be immediately rectified by an extensive education campaign. There should be extensive community consultation, especially with rural landholders. References 1. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/truth-gets-lost-amid-the-debate-onnational-parks-catherine-cusack/story-e6frezz0-1226389879077 2. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2012/s3535098.htm?site=gippsland 3. http://theland.farmonline.com.au/blogs/agribuzz-with-david-leyonhjelm/property-rightsgone-for-the-general-good/2594167.aspx?storypage=0 4. http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/62247/Native_Veg_Case_Stud y.pdf 5. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=ef282b1a-43d5- 44d3-a1e8-e613ee9f4ccb 6. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=0088ed5f-025e- 4164-81fd-05d062568ff7 7. http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/peter-spencer 8. http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/The-Attack-on-Property-Rights-Finlay.pdf 9. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article1200 9%E2%80%9310?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2009%9610& num=&view 10. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html 11. http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/intro_flora_australia.pdf 12. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/terrestrialassessment/pubs/terrestrial-assessment.pdf 13. http://www.oxfordclimatepolicy.org/publications/documents/Ellermannetal.pdf 14. http://150.229.66.66/bmrc/basic/cawcr-wksp1/papers/Raupach.pdf 15. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical 16. http://globalcitizen.net/Data/Pages/1291/papers/2009103014156814.pdf 17. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/ 18. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/what-money-cant-buythe-moral-limits-of-markets-by-michael-sandel-7711785.html 19. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/ 20. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/07/putting-a-price-on-nature-a-destructivedelusion/ 21. http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/mark-sagoff/the-rise-and-fall-ofecologica.shtml 22. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products/12/psw_cufr704_Brack_Pollution_ Mitig_Urban_Forest.pdf 23. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1053209/biobanking-land-purchase-to-go-ahead 24. http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2010/06/biobanking-credibility-sinksconservation-site-undermined 25. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mine-plan-shows-biobanking-fails-say-green-groups- 20100624-z3px.html 26. http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/subs/071130assessment_methodology.pdf 27. http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/12356 28. http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/8484/cmfes.pdf 29. http://www.cec.org.au/sub/BioBanking.Submission/index.htm 30. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC20061025 31. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/20120062bbrevdp.pdf 32. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/08346biobankingcas.pdf 33. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127o.html 34. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127u.html 35. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127s.html 36. http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/fighting-the-nsw-standard-lep-what-if-we-alljoined-forces?xg_source=activity APPENDIX K Correspondence With Eurobodalla Shire Council Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator Eurobodalla Shire Council Dear Mark, Thank you for your email. Although I am trying to move forward in an attempt to resolve the vitally important issues we have been discussing, you are tending to revisit matters we have already resolved while at the same time completely ignoring fundamental questions from my earlier emails. The matters discussed below are of vital importance to local ratepayers and of vital importance for the upcoming elections. If any of my assertions below are in any way inaccurate, please supply documentary evidence from the vast resources of Council to demonstrate my error/s so that the matters may be resolved. Your inability to do this to date merely prolongs the correspondence and raises more questions. I look forward to resolving the issues below in the interests of local ratepayers and in the interests of the wider community as well. For clarity I will reproduce some of the unanswered questions from previous correspondence at the conclusion of this email and I hope that you will make a meaningful attempt to respond to them. Previously I stated the following facts which you now, for some reason seem to dispute. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency (the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda 21/sustainability program. You will note that I have cited authoritative evidence in support of this claim, including evidence from your Settlement Strategy and from the UN but although you disputed the above you were unable to supply any supportive documentation whatsoever to support your position. In fact, the documentation you did provide (Settlement Strategy) supports my claim that Council policy is indeed based upon the UN Agenda 21 program. It is a simple fact that you state the “Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire” and it is also a simple fact that this Settlement Strategy clearly states (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. It is also a simple fact that Agenda 21 is a United Nations program, designed by the UN (2, 3, 4, 5). But as you no doubt realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is also monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (2, 6, 7, 8). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (2, 6, 8). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (8): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (7): “4. Agenda 21 called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date not later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made towards meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are plans for expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts on farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX: OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your answers (i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are ordered on a scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 – clear and apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no achievements at all 1 – worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4] Development of a national policy or strategy on integrated land management [4] Development of policies that have encouraged sustainable land use and management of land resources [5] Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use and management [4] Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3] Institutional set-up for monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and adoption of market-based measures [4] Information compilation and land capability analysis [5] Identification of data gaps [5] Identification of major challenges and issues related to the implementation of integrated land use and management approach at nation-wide level 82 2. What level of importance is attached to the different functions of land in your country? Please provide qualitative ranking of the major functions or characteristics of land (i.e. give a rating to every box) on a scale from 1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 – Highly important 2 – only slightly important 1 – not important at all Ranking Major functions/characteristics of land [1] Food security [4] Rural development [4] Rural viability [4] Environmental sustainability (protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved policies and institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and equity [4] Social cohesion” Since the United Nations origin, and monitoring provisions for implementation of Agenda 21, are indisputable, it would seem you must disagree with Council’s commitment to Agenda 21 as stated in the Settlement Strategy. Clearly this would be ridiculous. I was hoping for a more meaningful response, more in accord with the seriousness of these matters. To continue to dispute simple facts while ratepayers struggle with the results of Council policy creates a perception of extreme self-interest and complete indifference towards the everyday concerns of ratepayers. I also asserted in my previous communication: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny residents a democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land use/sustainability policies determined locally, by local authorities and ratepayers, or by an undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Has the situation changed? Has Council decided to fully inform residents of the UN origin and end goals of AG21 at the upcoming election so they make an informed choice? As I asked previously: You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a survey in the local area and ask residents the following questions then I would mostly obtain correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability policy is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full details and goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did council give you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based policy as distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been communicating with residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Not only was this question completely ignored by you, but further, In your response you were unable to supply any documentary evidence whatsoever (media releases, ratepayers notices) confirming that Council had fully advised residents of the UN origin, end goals, and UN monitoring, of Agenda 21 prior to its introduction and incorporation into Council policy. Why do you continue to refuse to supply this information if in fact you have accurately and truthfully advised residents as you claim? I have repeated some of your statements below with my responses in red. “Agenda 21 is an international framework agreement for pursuing global sustainable development that was endorsed by national governments, including the Australian Government, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.” Correct, it is a program designed by the UN and overseen and monitored by the UN as noted above, but it appears you did not explain this to ratepayers. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to the framework.” The fact that Council is implementing Agenda 21, without giving residents an informed democratic choice has already been established. The fact that you may not be a direct (Council of course must answer to state and federal governments which in turn answer to the UN) ‘signatory’ is completely irrelevant. “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency.” You have already conceded that Council’s Settlement Strategy, is based upon the dictates of the United Nations Agenda 21 program. Are you suggesting the UN is not a foreign agency? “Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency.” You have stated in your Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. How is it possible that you have based the Shire Settlement Strategy on Agenda 21, which states in chapter 38.11, that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development will be established to monitor progress and implementation, and yet you claim no involvement from the UN or a foreign agency? Of course, whether it is monitored directly, or indirectly through state or federal governments, is irrelevant. “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy.” Council has so far been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that it fully informed residents of the UN origin and total goals of Agenda 21 before implementation. “Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community.” I have already dealt with these issues above. Council agreed to implement Agenda 21 and one of the provisions of Agenda 21 is an agreement to be monitored by the UNCSD as already noted. “All of Councils policies are set by the democratically elected Council of the day, this includes the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire.” Since the Settlement Strategy, which is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program, will determine “Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire,” does this mean you will be following the lead of US States and Councils which are banning the UN Agenda 21 program? I note that Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, has recently passed the new LEP (9, 10,) in spite of the numerous protests and complaints from local ratepayers, including a petition with 5000 signatures (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) and in spite of your claims that you continue to work with local residents rather than against them. I note the long list of complaints and adverse results of Council policies (12): “· Lost sales due to new Overlays / E-Zones · Owners cost of DA applications and associated expensive consultancy studies i.e., native vegetation, endangered species, aboriginal artefacts, environmental impact, sea inundation, acid soil test, flora and fauna studies, bush fire report, catchment management study, energy rating report, geotechnical report and section 94 contributions · Owners/buyers being compelled to sign agreements to further restrict land uses or forced to donate private land to get a DA approved. · Council requesting owners to submit DA’s despite knowing the DA would be rejected on crucial issues · Council applying new Draft (LEP) to current DA applications · More recently the Council not wanting DA’s submitted until the new LEP is adopted · 1c zoned land owners are losing their entitlements · Subdivision approved with onerous restrictions – i.e. No hoofed animals allowed on lifestyle properties (Hobby farms) · Increasing minimum size lots from 450m² to 550m² · Council selling public land · Private buyers finding the Eurobodalla Council too difficult and frustrating to deal with and therefore abandon their pursuit of buying within the shire · Commercial developers claiming similar issues as above · Council becoming a Quasi Developer – viewed as a conflict of interest and possibly anticompetitive · Some residents have left the area and others are looking to leave due to frustrations with Council · Council stating to purchasers not to touch certain properties “With a 40 foot pole” · Down-zoning land for Councils’ future acquisition with no communication to owners · The implementation of Bio-certification is inequitable and will divide our Community. This will also add further costs and restrictions to landowners and developers, further exasperating our struggling economy · Owners restricted from removing dead wood and slashing/mowing their land · Property owners promised 4-5 lot subdivision and eventually badgered into accepting a 1 lot subdivision · The Rural Lands Strategy Steering Committee will neither remedy nor compensate negatively affected land owners.” I urge you to reconsider your stance and ban UN/Agenda 21 associated policies as mentioned below. How do you propose to protect landowners from restrictive repressive anti-Australian Agenda 21 policies? When will you commence such action? Regards Graham Williamson PREVIOUS UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Recently the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue to have landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign agency, will you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so residents may make an informed democratic choice? When the local government of College Station in Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess Fields commented (2, 3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an Agenda 21 organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’ on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from foreign agencies? “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012 4:30 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher; Shannon Burt Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, Apologies for the delay in replying to your email. Your concerns regarding the process of determining local land use and sustainability policies are unfounded. Agenda 21 is an international framework agreement for pursuing global sustainable development that was endorsed by national governments, including the Australian Government, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to the framework. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. As I have previously advised, the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was extensive community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan. In both of these consultation processes, the community told Council that protection of the environment was important to them. Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop local solutions to local environmental issues. All of Councils policies are set by the democratically elected Council of the day, this includes the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire. This should leave you in no doubt that Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with the opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that Council is not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda. As all of your questions have now been fully answered, there should be no need for any further correspondence on the matter. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 7:49 AM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, I have yet to receive a response to my communication of 2nd July and the issues raised therein (see below). When can I expect a response to these issues and questions? If you feel incapable of making a meaningful response could you please forward this communication to the appropriate authority. In order to save your valuable time, the matters may be summarised as below. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency (the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda 21/sustainability program. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny residents a democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land use/sustainability policies determined locally, by local authorities and ratepayers, or by an undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Recently the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” FACT: Your council is unashamedly still promoting and implementing these same undemocratic foreign based and initiated restrictions upon the rights of local landowners. Are you prepared to represent the interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue to have landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign agency, will you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so residents may make an informed democratic choice? When the local government of College Station in Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess Fields commented (2, 3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an Agenda 21 organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’ on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from foreign agencies? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mark, Once again you have overlooked the main points I have made. 1. Your environmental policy, in spite of your initial denial, is UN Agenda 21 (1) based as stated quite clearly in your settlement strategy. Agenda 21 environmental policies are planned and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency, the UN. In fact, In Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to administer and implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. Have you fully informed residents about this and given them a democratic choice? I repeat the unanswered questions from my previous email. “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” You state in your response: With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. Once again you overlook the main point which is not about sustainability but rather whether council should be acting as an agent of the UN by implementing UN environmental policies which will also be overseen by the UN, or whether council should reject interference from undemocratic foreign agencies and instead implement its own policies. Is council incapable of implementing its own sustainability policy, controlled and monitored locally? And did council give residents a democratic choice about this, fully informing them they had decided to seek foreign control of their environmental policies instead of acting independently in accord with the desire of ratepayers? You seem to suggest that it is impossible to act sustainably unless council conforms to the dictates of the UN. Is this your meaning? You further state: “Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision.” Is this true? You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a survey in the local area and ask residents the following questions then I would mostly obtain correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability policy is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full details and goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did council give you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based policy as distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been communicating with residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Will council continue to support intrusive, regressive UN policies which are being banned overseas? Or will council reconsider and represent ratepayers instead? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au] Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my previous reply to your email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive consultations with the Eurobodalla community in the development of planning strategies and to outline how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of development in rural areas. This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers and that our policy is not regressive as suggested. You expressed an interest in rural properties, so my reply was focused on our planning for rural areas. With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. As a further example of local dialogue on actions relating to achieving the principles of ecologically sustainable development, Council is currently exhibiting a Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community input into the ways Council can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in response to the issue of climate change. Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. Regards, Mark From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03 PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank you for your prompt reply. It does appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you have been misinformed. I asked if Council policy is based upon a foreign UN Agenda 21 program or whether Council is following overseas precedents in banning such programs to protect ratepayers. You responded by stating “unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect”, however, you referred me to your Settlement Strategy (1) to back up your claim that I had been misadvised. When I checked this document I found that it directly contradicted your claim that your policies are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and actually confirmed what I had heard about Council resorting to implementation of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy. According to the Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am alarmed that Council seems to be acting as an agent of the UN in forcing ratepayers to comply with the dictates of such a regressive intrusive program as Agenda 21. Has Council given ratepayers an informed choice about this? Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas, why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I am particularly interested in ascertaining your future intentions in this regard. Council has made their allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above statement, but what about your allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban all Agenda 21 associated policies to protect the interests of ratepayers? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw…gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:41 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan (ELEP 2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural land uses and primary production industries on rural zoned lands across the Shire. Aside from traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying, horticultural and husbandry activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of additional land uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries through to home based child care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012 also includes secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate growing families or rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be approved by the NSW Government in the very near future and will then be available to view from Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to learn more about the rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural land management, you may like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, available on Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/. The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation, community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language /en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/ . I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to review the information referred to. If you would like further information Council staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au] Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my previous reply to your email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive consultations with the Eurobodalla community in the development of planning strategies and to outline how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of development in rural areas. This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers and that our policy is not regressive as suggested. You expressed an interest in rural properties, so my reply was focused on our planning for rural areas. With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. As a further example of local dialogue on actions relating to achieving the principles of ecologically sustainable development, Council is currently exhibiting a Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community input into the ways Council can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in response to the issue of climate change. Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. Regards, Mark From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03 PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank you for your prompt reply. It does appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you have been misinformed. I asked if Council policy is based upon a foreign UN Agenda 21 program or whether Council is following overseas precedents in banning such programs to protect ratepayers. You responded by stating “unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect”, however, you referred me to your Settlement Strategy (1) to back up your claim that I had been misadvised. When I checked this document I found that it directly contradicted your claim that your policies are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and actually confirmed what I had heard about Council resorting to implementation of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy. According to the Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am alarmed that Council seems to be acting as an agent of the UN in forcing ratepayers to comply with the dictates of such a regressive intrusive program as Agenda 21. Has Council given ratepayers an informed choice about this? Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas, why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I am particularly interested in ascertaining your future intentions in this regard. Council has made their allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above statement, but what about your allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban all Agenda 21 associated policies to protect the interests of ratepayers? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw…gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:41 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan (ELEP 2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural land uses and primary production industries on rural zoned lands across the Shire. Aside from traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying, horticultural and husbandry activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of additional land uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries through to home based child care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012 also includes secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate growing families or rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be approved by the NSW Government in the very near future and will then be available to view from Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to learn more about the rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural land management, you may like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, available on Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/. The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation, community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language /en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/ . I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to review the information referred to. If you would like further information Council staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark APPENDIX L Complaint to NSW Ombudsman SUMMARY Three important issues resulted from my correspondence with Eurobodalla Council and the NSW Ombudsman. 1. Truthfulness of Council. This includes both the supplying of complete and factual information in response to my enquiry and also the commitment shown by Council to fully and truthfully inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. 2. The legislative authority of Council in regard to enforcing upon local residents the dictates of a foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program. 3. Response of the Ombudsman. This includes not only the Ombudsman’s refuting of evidence provided in my complaint, but also the “repackaging” of my complaint by the Ombudsman and internal disagreements within the Ombudsman’s office regarding the subject of my complaint. 1. Truthfulness of Council a. Accuracy of information supplied by Council in response to my enquiry My assertion to Council that the Agenda 21 program, which they admitted forms the basis of their Settlement Strategy, is a foreign program, the implementation of which is also monitored by a foreign organisation (the UN), was completely denied by Council. Council statements clearly contradicted the facts, as evidenced by extensive documentary evidence from the United Nations, the Commonwealth government, and the NSW government. In spite of this, the NSW Ombudsman stated they agreed with Council claims that Agenda 21 is NOT a foreign program and its implementation is NOT monitored by a foreign agency (the UN). The NSW Ombudsman has here apparently acted to condone or reinforce the dishonesty of Council and the supplying of misleading or deliberately false information by Council. b. Commitment shown by Council to fully and truthfully inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. Because of the UN origin of AG21, the complexity of the program, and the threat it poses to fundamental human rights, it is vitally important that the Council has shown a clear commitment to accurately convey all these details to local residents. However, in response to my enquiry asking Council to provide evidence of media releases or Council notices to explain the details of AG21 to local residents, Council were unable to provide even one such notice. I concluded that “the high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community is patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and its total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense of social conscience or commitment.” While the Ombudsman made no direct reference to this allegation, he did note however that of the various “community consultations” conducted by Council he was unable to document even one which was designed by Council to educate local residents regarding the full details of AG21. Evidence from the Ombudsman therefore reinforces the claim that enforcement of AG 21 by Eurobodalla Council is fundamentally undemocratic. 2. The legislative authority of Council in regard to enforcing upon local residents the dictates of a foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program. As I notified the NSW Ombudsman, according to the Commonwealth government “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” In response the Ombudsman was careful NOT to deny Council had exceeded its legislative authority. He simply made the point that he did not have the information “before” him to confirm any such abuse of Council powers. The Ombudsman however, carefully avoided responding to my quote from the Commonwealth government that Councils have no legislative authority to enforce AG21. The fact remains that Eurobodalla Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says they do not have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman clearly, and no doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth, preferring instead to suggest he did not have sufficient information. Perhaps this issue can only be resolved in the Courts. Obviously a distinction must be made between enforcing provisions of AG21 and enforcing provisions of NSW state legislation. 3. Response From the Ombudsman’s Office According to Phoebe Tan, my complaint to the Ombudsman was about “council’s environmental and land use policies being determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as the council have stated that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” For some reason Ms Tan chose to confine my complaint to land use policies (my complaint was about the totality of AG21) and completely omit all my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and Council’s failure to supply truthful and complete information to local residents. Why does the Ombudsman’s office assume the role of processing and altering the substance of complaints they receive? As a result of my objections to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan, I received a second response from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour. According to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s new description of my complaint, my complaint was about the “legislative authority” of Council, not the “land use policies” as asserted by Phoebe Tan. Like Phoebe Tan however, Bruce Barbour chose not to include my complaint about honesty and accuracy of information supplied by Council. The reader can see that I have made my complaints perfectly clear but yet the Ombudsman’s office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce Barbour contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my complaint. In Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim that my complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented by her. However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use policies had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to comment upon this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s analysis even though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the “legislative authority” of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about the UN monitoring of Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for some reason Barbour, in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this from his analysis of the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is clearly in complete disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted and censored and staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a complaint. The Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and sterilises the complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after arguing about the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the complaint. How can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Given the above it is hardly surprising that the Ombudsman’s office was unable to refute the voluminous documentary evidence I supplied to them. My evidence may have been indisputable, but my complaint was dismissed nevertheless. I repeat my concerns made to the Ombudsman regarding the specific failings of the Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 1. Firstly, Council states quite clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer this new complaint which was created by you. 2. Although Agenda 21 is United Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency. Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. I supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once again you completely ignored all this evidence. Introduction Eurobodalla Shire Council, like many councils, has been busy using the provisions of the United Nations Agenda 21 program to undermine human rights and freedoms, particularly property rights (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). To make matters worse, the public have not been informed of the implications of Agenda 21 and are kept in a high state of ignorance by all three levels of government. In fact this public ignorance is one of the hallmarks of the program and seems to be a prerequisite for the successful implementation of what otherwise would be a democratically unacceptable foreign program. In view of these facts I expressed my concerns to Eurobodalla Council in a series of emails which are documented in Appendix A. However, the dismissing of my concerns by council ultimately resulted in my contacting the NSW Ombudsman. On 1st of August 2012 I submitted a complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding Eurobodalla Councils implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21 program. This paper documents that complaint and the response from the Ombudsman. The reader should note however, that since this complaint was initiated there have been Council elections with the consequent restructuring of Eurobodalla Council. Summary of Initial Complaint to Ombudsman Initially, in my complaint, I documented the responsibility of Council to truthfully inform the public. Council notes the unacceptability of “illegal decisions”, “decisions not in the public interest”, “decisions which would not withstand public scrutiny,” “conflicts of interest”, but also dishonest decisions or those reflecting poorly on Council integrity are also unacceptable. But in forcing upon local residents, with absolutely no legislative authority, a program which was produced by a foreign agency, and is monitored by a foreign agency, Council has gone way beyond its legal authority and has relied upon fictitious powers to force its will upon residents. Furthermore, Councils complete failure to properly inform and educate the local community regarding the foreign nature of this program, the foreign monitoring of the program, and the totality or end goals of the program, reveals that Council has completely abrogated its role as a Council and working with the community in the interests of the community. So complete has been Councils failure to truthfully inform the public that the prospect of deliberate deception must be very carefully investigated. I then proceeded to summarise my complaint and supply back up evidence. Summary of Complaint 1. Council Enforcing Foreign Program With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own Settlement Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local community the provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called Agenda 21. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when? 2. Council resorting to dishonesty or misleading information. Initially I asked Council : “I was advised that Council supports a regressive rural land policy based upon the requirements of the UN Agenda 21 program, a program currently being banned overseas. Is this correct? On behalf of Council, Mr Hitchenson responded: “Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect.” However, as noted above and below, Mr Hitchenson’s response is not true or accurate since Council admits its policy is indeed based upon Agenda 21. What disciplinary action will be taken about this and when? Subsequently Mr Hitchenson responded in regard to Agenda 21: “With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner.” So though Council claims I had been incorrectly advised about Council implementing Agenda 21, now Council claims, re Agenda 21, they are “required to act by law.” As already noted however, AG 21 has no legislative basis. Council also goes to some length to repeatedly emphasise their policies have no foreign connection whatsoever but have been locally formulated. According to Council: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency – Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy – There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency – Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners.” As I point out to Council however, “Council admits its policies are based upon AG 21 and AG21 is a UN policy and the UN is a foreign agency; if any of this is incorrect please supply proof, if not, let us cease arguing about simple facts – council has agreed to the provisions of Agenda 21 and chapter 38.11 of AG 21 clearly sets out the UN’s monitoring provisions, which are of course carried out with the assistance of all 3 levels of government. Since Council agreed to adopt Agenda 21 Council would also have been aware of the monitoring provisions which are an integral part of the program.” Council further underlines the dependence of its environmental/sustainability policies upon Agenda 21 and foreign agencies with its admission in its Greenhouse Action Plan that such policies are derived from ICLEI (2), an Agenda 21 promotional organisation. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (4), “The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government.” And further, according to ICLEI, “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN Conference on Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda 21’.” Once again information supplied by Council is false, unless of course Council is either declaring its own documents to be false or claiming the UN is not a foreign agency. What disciplinary action will you take about this and when? 3. Abandonment of Democracy, Divisiveness, and Acting Against the Interests of Ratepayers, and Refusing to Truthfully Advise Ratepayers. I asked Council the following questions as evidenced below: “Has Council offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? Council has completely ignored this question. Do you intend to clearly state your policies in regard to the above matters for the upcoming local elections?” Council has completely ignored this question. “Has Council warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc)? In response Council stated: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy – All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community- As I have previously advised, the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was extensive community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan – Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop local solutions to local environmental issues.” So far Council has not been able to produce even one document they have produced with the purpose of educating the public about the UN origin of Agenda 21, and the totality or end goals of Agenda 21. As a result, I responded to Council: “I have repeatedly asked Council to provide copies of media releases or council notices informing residents of the UN origin and monitoring of AG21 and the full agenda or long term goals of AG21 but so far council has been unable to produce even one document in support of their claim that they have communicated with the community and given them a democratic choice – I have asked why the Council felt unable to utilise its own locally produced and monitored sustainability plan but instead felt the need to import a UN plan but have received no answer to this. Has this been explained to residents during your consultation with them?” The high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community is patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and its total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense of social conscience or commitment. What disciplinary action will you take about this and when? Ombudsman’s Response to Initial Complaint In my complaint to the Ombudsman I first made the following point. “Council Enforcing Foreign Program With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own Settlement Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local community the provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called Agenda 21. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when?” I received the following response from Phoebe Tan of the Ombudsman’s office: “Council’s decision to consider Agenda 21 when developing their environmental and land use policies is a discretionary decision and doing so does not avoid the requirement that such policies must be deemed to comply with the Act by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and ultimately, the Minister for Planning.” In reply I pointed out to the Ombudsman that my complaint did not specifically mention land use policies and nowhere in Council documentation did Council claim its implementation of AG 21 was limited to the land use policies of the AG21 program. “Seems for some reason you have decided to limit your Agenda 21 comments to “land use policies” whereas this was not my complaint. Why do you suggest my complaint about AG21 is only about “land use policies” when I did not state this? Council states quite clearly that they endorse ALL the provisions of Agenda 21” (16). I then outlined some of the requirements of Agenda 21, requirements which were endorsed by Eurobodalla Council since Council did not seek to qualify or limit their endorsement of Agenda 21 in any way. According to the UN, Agenda 21 is (18) “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” These provisions include control of pollution, land use, limiting consumption, conservation, health, development, agriculture, biodiversity, water, women, farming, to name but a few. Additionally, participants in Agenda 21 agree to UN supervision and monitoring. In specific connection with local government AG21 states (19): “All local authorities in each country should be encouraged to implement and monitor programmes which aim at ensuring that women and youth are represented in decision-making, planning and implementation processes. Activities 28.3. Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations and private enterprises and adopt “a local Agenda 21″. Through consultation and consensusbuilding, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted. Strategies could also be used in supporting proposals for local, national, regional and international funding. 28.4. Partnerships should be fostered among relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization and other relevant partners, with a view to mobilizing increased international support for local authority programmes. An important goal would be to support, extend and improve existing institutions working in the field of local authority capacity-building and local environment management. For this purpose: (a) Habitat and other relevant organs and organizations of the United Nations system are called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need international support; (b) Periodic consultations involving both international partners and developing countries could review strategies and consider how such international support could best be mobilized. Such a sectoral consultation would complement concurrent country-focused consultations, such as those taking place in consultative groups and round tables.” The Ombudsman was unable to refute any of this information of course since it is taken directly from the Agenda 21 document published by the United Nations. I asked the Ombudsman again: “Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when?” My questions regarding implementation were NOT limited to land use decisions though for some reason you have chosen to make this claim. Council has nowhere limited its implementation of AG21 to land use decisions only in spite of your apparent conclusion in this regard. Especially since the Commonwealth government has said Council has no legal power (17) to implement the provisions of “Agenda 21”, how are they permitted to implement this foreign program? The mere statement by Council that it is implementing AG21 is, according to Commonwealth, a violation of its own powers. Are you contradicting the Commonwealth and suggesting Council is legally entitled to enforce any or all of the provisions of the Agenda 21 package? FACT: Eurobodalla Council has confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as “Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear end point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our lives and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and confine the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth government has stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21.” The Ombudsman, though unable to refute my evidence, failed to respond to any of my above points. I asked the Ombudsman again: “For some reason you have sought to turn my complaint into a complaint about land use only and ignore the actual facts of my complaint which relate to AG21 itself and the behaviour and authority of Council. Why?” In my complaint I also drew attention to supply of inaccurate, misleading, or untruthful information by council but the Ombudsman’s only response to Council deception was: “I acknowledge your complaint that council has answered none of your questions. I have read your complaint and the supporting documentation you have provided, including several responses from Mr Mark Hitchenson, Land Use Planning Coordinator for the council. Mr Hitchenson’s emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to your contact and the issues you have raised. That the council has not answered ‘every’ question is not wrong conduct that warrants further investigation by this office.” I replied to the Ombudsman: “You have made absolutely no comment or judgement about the accuracy or truthfulness of Council’s responses but yet this was fundamental to my complaint. Why? Are you suggesting Council was truthful, accurate and open? Are you suggesting Council did not breach the Council Code of Conduct? FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda 21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation of AG21 FACT: Council has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection with a foreign agency. Council claims are blatantly false and untrue and yet you have described this as being “appropriately responsive”. Why, and on what basis, do you consider factual inaccuracies and untruths as an appropriate response? Please reveal where Council responded “appropriately” by accurately informing me about the UN basis and monitoring of AG21. If you cannot show me this then my question remains; why are you seeking to condone or cover up their dishonesty? Is this your personal decision, or an official decision of the Ombudsman’s office? Council has made repeated statements which are factually inaccurate and untruthful and yet you have concluded that this dishonesty is quite acceptable. Why? On what basis do you condone this dishonesty? Are you suggesting this dishonesty conforms to the Code of Conduct? As a result of the Ombudsman’s response I responded thus: So are you endorsing and supporting the numerous untruths told by Council, and the misinformation supplied by Council, which is in direct breach of the Council Code of conduct? Is this correct? Or are you suggesting the Council told no untruths, did not supply misinformation, and did not violate the Code of Conduct? I further expressed my concern regarding the Ombudsman’s response and detailed specific failings of the Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 3. Firstly, Council states quite clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer this new complaint which was created by you. 4. Although Agenda 21 is United Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency. Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. 5. I supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once again you completely ignored all this evidence. I continued to express my concerns to the Ombudsman regarding his response. “In your response you stated as in red below. Council’s environmental and land use policies When councils develops its planning policies such as the Local Environment Plan (LEP), council must follow the process set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). More specifically, councils must publicly exhibit amendments to the LEP, invite public comment and consider any submissions received. The draft LEP is then sent to the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Planning for a report to the Minister for Planning who makes the final decision to amend the LEP. The Director-General must report to the Minister on whether the draft LEP has met all the requirements of the Act. This office generally does not take up complaints about the changes to the content of LEPs because the Minister for Planning makes the final decision on a proposal to rezone land, and we have no power to investigate the conduct of a Minister.” “While I thank you for the information, what has all this got to do with my complaint? I did not mention land use and LEP’s but yet here you are answering a complaint I did not make. Why? Why invent a new complaint that I did not make and then proceed to answer it? I repeat: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as “Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear end point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our lives and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and confine the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth government has stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21. FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda 21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation of AG21 FACT: Council has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection with a foreign agency. I have provided extensive documentation from the United Nations, the government, and Council, to substantiate ALL of the above facts. You have not been able to dispute or disprove ANY of that evidence. You describe Council’s dishonesty about the United Nations origin of Agenda 21 thus: “Mr Hitchenson’s emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to your contact and the issues you have raised.” So according to the Office of the NSW Ombudsman, concealing the truth, or blatant dishonesty, is an “appropriate” Council response and does not violate the Council Code of Conduct. Is this correct? If not, in light of the above facts, please explain how their denial of foreign involvement is truthful. Are you suggesting both the government and the United Nations are wrong about the foreign origin of AG21?” The above points I made in my complaint, backed up by extensive evidence from the United Nations, the Australian government, and Eurobodalla Council, were not refuted by the Ombudsman even though my complaints were nevertheless dismissed. The Council was untruthful and supplied misleading or deliberately false information about the foreign UN origin of Agenda 21 and yet this dishonesty was apparently approved by the Ombudsman. Adding to this deception was the fact that the Council were unable to supply a copy of even one press release or council notice explaining to residents the full details of AG 21 and its UN origins. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman seemingly gave his seal of approval to Council’s deceptive and misleading behaviour and their determination NOT to explain to residents the full implications of AG 21. Second Response from Ombudsman’s Office – from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour As a result of my above objections to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan, the matter was then referred to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour for further consideration. But for some reason, the Ombudsman chose to completely omit all my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and Council’s responsibility to supply truthful information. According to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s new description of my complaint, my complaint was only about the “legislative authority” of Council. Barbour’s analysis of my complaint contrasts sharply with the earlier analysis by Phoebe Tan. “You complain that the council’s environmental and land use policies are being determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as the council have stated that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” The reader can see that I have made my complaint perfectly clear but yet the Ombudsman’s office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce Barbour contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my complaint. In Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim that my complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented by her. However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use policies had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to comment upon this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s analysis even though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the “legislative authority” of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about the UN monitoring of Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for some reason Barbour, in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this from his analysis of the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is clearly in complete disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted and censored and staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a complaint. The Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and sterilises the complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after arguing about the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the complaint. How can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Barbour went on to say he agreed with the reply I received from Mark Hitchenson of Eurobodalla Council: The comments made by Hitchenson, with which the Ombudsman fully agrees, are as follows: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community……This should leave you in no doubt that Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with the opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that Council is not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda.” The fact that Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program, and it is program monitored by a foreign Agency (the UN) is simply indisputable as is clear from the above evidence. Also perfectly clear is the fact that Eurobodalla Council not only failed to publicise and inform the community about these facts, but even worse, when I questioned them they concealed the truth and supplied highly misleading and deceptive information. Additionally, the Council was unable to supply even one media release or Council notice showing they had attempted to explain to residents the full implications of AG 21. In spite of all these facts, the NSW Ombudsman has endorsed and stated his agreement with the above misinformation supplied by Eurobodalla Council. The NSW Ombudsman continued to offer the following explanation of his response in his letter. This information of course is completely irrelevant to my complaint and the reason for its inclusion in the Ombudsman’s response is unclear. Of course I have never suggested the Council is a signatory to the agreement. Quite the opposite in fact since I pointed out that Council had no legislative authority to enforce AG21 upon local residents. Signatory or not, the fact remains that implementation is monitored by the United Nations. The Ombudsman continues in his letter. The reason the Ombudsman included this information is also unclear, unless he was somehow meaning to suggest that the “community consultations” he referred to in some way indicate that Council has attempted to honestly inform the public about AG21. Quite the opposite is true in fact. The Ombudsman has seemingly confirmed that he was unable to document any community consultations conducted by Council which were intended to convey to the public the full implications of AG21 and its United Nations origin. In all of these community consultations, the Ombudsman has confirmed that not one was designed to explain the full implications of AG21 to residents. The Council it seems, specifically avoided explaining the full details of AG 21 to local residents. Even though the Ombudsman is supplying further evidence here to support my allegation that Council has not even attempted to explain the full implications of AG21 to local residents, nevertheless, somehow he dismissed my complaint! The Ombudsman continues in his letter. The Ombudsman is careful here NOT to deny Council has exceeded its legislative authority. He simply makes the point that he does not have the information “before” him to confirm any such abuse of Council powers. The Ombudsman carefully avoided responding to my quote from the Commonwealth government that Councils have no legislative authority to enforce AG21 (2) : “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” The fact remains that Eurobodalla Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says they do not have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman clearly, and no doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth, preferring instead to suggest he did not have sufficient information. APPENDIX M Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Unanswered email of 22/12/2012 Hi Greg, Unfortunately, though you prefer to ” draw this engagement to a conclusion”, this matter is just emerging and will be a factor at the next election. Australians are looking for politicians with a commitment to Australia, not a commitment to importing everything, including UN sustainability programs. But Australians are also looking for a commitment to democracy, truth and political integrity, not backroom deals and covert undeclared policies in which they have no say. Ignoring these matters will fracture the conservative vote and encourage new parties. I find it interesting that you mentioned global government and global conspiracy in regard to Agenda 21. I did not mention these terms or make this connection although of course I acknowledge an awareness of discussions about this, including discussions in the Federal parliament. I also acknowledge statements from the UN to the effect that the limitations of state sovereignty are restricting their global governance aspirations. I also acknowledge the simple fact that the independence and sovereignty of Australia has been progressively reduced over the past 2 decades by various political mechanisms. Are all these changes accidental or deliberate? You would know the answer to this better than I would. Suffice to say that successive governments conspicuously avoid arresting this process by strengthening our sovereignty and independence. What is your policy? More of the same? Or would you adopt a policy of strengthening Australia’s sovereignty and independence? Your question “Can I ask if you honestly think that John Howard was involved in some global Government Green left conspiracy” is curious and irrelevant. I find it interesting that you prefer to waste time with such a question and avoid all the real issues I raised. You seem to be more concerned about what you label ‘conspiracies’ than about the nationwide implementation of AG21 to which I referred. You seem more concerned with conspiracies than the warning your government issued about councils exceeding their legislative authority. And you expressed no concern whatsoever that according to legal experts AG21 is being used to destroy the traditional anthropocentric values of our legal system(see previous encl), even though, being a lawyer, you would be well aware of this. Are these legal experts all wrong? When you describe AG21 as a “dead, irrelevant declaration”, are you suggesting our laws are not being rewritten to endorse the ecocentric principles of AG21 as legal experts claim? And are you suggesting AG21 is not currently being implemented around Australia? And are you suggesting that your government was wrong when they acknowledged in their 2006 SOE report that AG21 is being introduced by councils? If you look on the government’s web site http://www.environment.gov.au/about/international/uncsd/index.html#agenda21 you will see “Australia’s commitment to Agenda 21 is reflected in a strong national response to meet our obligations under this international agreement.” Is this what you mean by a dead irrelevant declaration? You mentioned John Howard. As you must be aware, the Howard government complied with the dictates of the UN that they must send regular implementation reports to the UN to confirm the details of implementation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Of course this was done undemocratically with no declared policy Australians could vote on. These reports of course involved huge government resources and involved a huge number of bureaucrats and politicians as you can see here (8): How Was This Report Written? The preparation of this report was overseen by an editorial committee composed of the following members: National (Commonwealth Government) members: · the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (convenor); · the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; · the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; · the Department of Primary Industries and Energy; and · the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). State and Local Government members: · a representative of the Government of the State of Victoria, nominated by the Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development to represent all States and Territories; and · the Australian Local Government Association. Non-government organisation members: · the Australian Conservation Foundation; · the Australian Council for Overseas Aid; and · the Business Council of Australia. Initial drafts of each chapter of the report were prepared by a Commonwealth Government department or agency with the relevant domestic responsibility. These drafts were provided to the editorial committee, all State, Territory and Local Government members of the Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development, and to approximately twenty non-government organisations (NGOs) with interests in the subject matter of the reports. Comments and suggestions from all groups were referred to the editorial committee and the report was finalised on the basis of the committee’s recommendations. The editorial committee took the view that, wherever possible, NGO suggestions on matters of fact or emphasis should be reflected in the body of the report. Where comments critical of government policy could not be accommodated in the official response to the CSD guidelines, text reflecting the comments provided by NGOs was agreed by the editorial committee and included in the report as an identified NGO comment. The report was drafted prior to the March 1996 Federal election which brought about a change of government. It has been approved by the new Government as a document describing policies and programs which were in effect prior to or as at the end of 1995. The final report was approved by the following Ministers: · the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill; · the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer MP; · the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP; and · the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon Warwick Parer. And again here (9): UNCSD – NATIONAL LEVEL COORDINATION STRUCTURE OF AGENDA 21 ACTIONS (Fact Sheet – CSD 1999) 1. Key National Sustainable Development Coordination Mechanism(s) (e.g, Councils, Commissions, Inter-Ministerial Working Groups). Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Working Groups The principle of sustainable development is now broadly accepted and built into the working programs of the key bodies of national governance which bring together the National and State governments. An example of these key bodies are Ministerial Councils, including: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council (ANZMEC) Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA) Australian Transport Council 2. Membership/Composition/Chairperson 2a. List of ministries and government agencies involved: Agencies involved in COAG are: Commonwealth Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet New South Wales Cabinet Office Victorian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet Western Australian Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Tasmanian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister Australian Capital Territory Chief minister’s Department Other Ministries that contribute to other coordination mechanisms such as the Ministerial Councils include: Australian Greenhouse Office Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade New South Wales Environment Protection Authority New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation New South Wales Fisheries New South Wales State Forests Victorian Environment Protection Agency Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment Queensland Department of Natural Resources Queensland Department of Primary Industries Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management Western Australian Fisheries South Australian Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources Tasmanian Department of the Primary Industries, Water and Environment Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Australian Capital Territory Department of Urban Services 2b. Names of para-statal bodies and institutions involved, as well as participation of academic and private sectors: A range of groups may be consulted on an issues basis, including: Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities Inc. Australian Local Government Association National Academies Forum National Environmental Law Association Royal Australian Planning Institute Australian Business Chamber Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Australian Industry Greenhouse Network Sustainable Technologies Australia Australian Chamber of Manufacturers Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd Minerals Council of Australia National Association of Forest Industries National Farmers’ Federation Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association Business Council of Australia The Institution of Engineers, Australia Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia Environment Management Industry Association of Australia Waste Management Association of Australia Australian Seafood Industry Council Recfish Australia Australian Automobile Association Australian Coal Association Australian Gas Association Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Ltd. Electricity Supply Association of Australia Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Metal trades industry Association Road Transport Forum Tourism Council Australia 2c. Names of non-governmental organisations: A number of non-government organisations are consulted on an issues basis, including: Australian Council for Overseas Aid Australian Conservation Foundation Greenpeace Australia World Wide Fund for Nature OzChild Australian Council of Social Services Australian Council of National Trustees Australian Marine Conservation Society Australian National Parks Council Humane Society International Clean Up Australia Ltd. Keep Australia Beautiful Association Birds Australia National Toxics Network Urban Ecology Australia Inc. Ecological Society of Australia Environs Australia Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Queensland Conservation Council Conservation Council of South Australia Conservation Council of Western Australia Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc. The Environment Centre Northern Territory CONSERAC Victorian National Parks Association 3. Mandate/role of above mechanism/council: COAG’s objectives include increasing cooperation among governments in the national interest, and consultation on major whole-of-government issues arising from Ministerial Council deliberations and on major initiatives of one government which impact on other governments. Groups such as ANZECC, ANZMEC, ARMCANZ, MCFFA report to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). When considering intergovernmental matters which have implications beyond the areas of responsibility of Ministers on a Council, liaison between Ministerial Councils is carried out through the respective Chairs, to ensure that relevant factors are taken into account. Chairs of Ministerial Councils may then report to Heads of Government on issues which have major cross-portfolio or whole-of-government implications. Submitted by Name: Andrew Ross Signature: Title: Director, Intergovernment Unit Date: Ministry/Office: Environment Australia Telephone: + 61 2 6274 1387 Fax: + 61 2 6274 1858 e-mail: Andrew.Ross@ea.gov.au Your claims that AG21 is a non-binding dead agreement (and you are unaware of the above) clearly contradict testimony by your own political party and your own colleagues. You are, for some reason, simply denying the truth, denying the facts. But it gets worse since you claim “we have no powers over local Governments.” I notice you failed to mention former Minister for Environment Robert Hill’s endorsement of the Commonwealth’s Local Agenda 21 guide for councils. According to the Minister: In 1992, the United Nations released a ground-breaking action plan for sustainable development called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a blueprint that sets out actions we can all take to contribute to global sustainability in the 21st century. It recognises that most environmental challenges have their roots in local activities and therefore encourages Local Governments to promote local environmental, economic and social sustainability by translating the principles of sustainable development into strategies that are meaningful to local communities. This process is called Local Agenda 21 (LA21). The importance of LA21 was recognised in June 1997 by APEC Ministers for Sustainable Development when they set an APEC-wide target of doubling the number of Councils with LA21s by 2003. At the time there were approximately 61 councils in Australia with LA21 programs in place. The importance of local ESD has been further recognised by Environment ministers from all Australian jurisdictions (meeting as the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)) when they agreed to encourage the implementation of LA21 in their own jurisdictions in order to meet the APEC LA21 target in Australia. In July 1999 ANZECC Ministers agreed to encourage LA21 in their jurisdictions through an ANZECC LA21 Achievement Award. The award will promote LA21 by recognising best practice and raising the profile of LA21 amongst Local Government. Since the Pathways to Sustainability Conference in June 1997 and the release of the Newcastle Declaration, we have seen the growth of Local Agenda 21 initiatives and the LA21 movement in Australia. Moving ahead on sustainable development is not an easy task but it is essential to secure Australia’s future. Australia needs leadership on sustainable development and many Australian Local Governments are providing that leadership… We are now starting to see strong synergies in Australia between LA21 and other sustainable development issues like greenhouse gas emission reduction, integrated coastal management, biodiversity conservation and the objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust.” Are you suggesting that Robert Hill was also unaware AG21 is “dead”? Let us be serious Greg. We both know AG21 is being implemented nationwide and this is being done without giving Australians a democratic choice. To deny this is to deny reality and suggest you are incompetent and unintelligent which I do not believe is so. So let us move on. Instead of constantly denying reality and arguing in the negative, what positive policies will you bring to the election to restore democracy and counter AG21. In the interests of Australian citizens, will you follow the American lead and ban all imported sustainability programs such as AG21? Are you prepared to take positive action, or merely continue arguing and pretending reality is not happening? I have been very patient and given you every opportunity only to have you insult my intelligence by denying simple facts. Isn’t Australia more important to you than that? Regards Graham Williamson —–Original Message—– From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 8:30 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy For the final time i had never heard of the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP’s pr constituents until 19 years after the ing was apparently signed. Given that you are int he same position we a subject to the same degree of knowledge. Can I ask if you honestly think that John Howard was involved in some global Government Green left conspiracy? Given that for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration 19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm. I respect your views and encourage you to find and approach any councils directly and to attend Council meetings to announce and denounce any actions which you believe are part of a global conspiracy. I genuinely respect your rights on this front. I will respectfully draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here to approach State based Governments as we have no powers over local Governments. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 6:54 PM, “Graham” wrote: Hi Greg, My interest has gradually increased over the past 12 months as I have learned more about it. You can see the summarised results of 12 months research enclosed. While I of course respect what you have said, it is very much at odds with reality as is evidenced by enclosed. Councils right around Australia are implementing Agenda 21 with the assistance of state governments. This is a simple fact. As you can see, state governments have even incorporated AG into the school curriculum. And your government has acknowledged councils continue to introduce it without legislative authority. The fact that there is such extensive nationwide implementation of this program without politicians prepared to accept responsibility is an enormous problem in itself and raises serious questions. The fact that it is being implemented without being a binding agreement raises even more questions as to why this is so. As you no doubt realise however, experts have pointed out(including human rights commission) that non binding international agreements commonly end up being incorporated into state laws. To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide by state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you deny this? Fact 2 Though you claim that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions” in fact it was included in 2006 SOE report under your watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3 Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is a simple fact, this raises serious questions about who is taking political responsibility for this since the electorate has never been given a democratic choice and politicians, like yourself, deny knowledge of it even though bureaucrats under their portfolio are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced from enclosed) Do you deny this?. Part of the problem of course was the decision by successive governments that Australia needed an imported sustainability program, one that was designed by a foreign agency and was monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course, governments, such as the Howard government, were required to send annual implementation reports to the CSD. You seem to be denying all this is happening and the politicians, bureaucrats, and other experts cited in the enclosed are all mistaken or not telling the truth. Is this correct? Australians are very concerned about what is happening to this great country and when hundreds of politicians, bureaucrats and other experts say AG21 is being implemented and yet no current politician is prepared to accept responsibility or even give the people a choice, it reflects very poorly upon the credibility of politicians. The clear impression is created that politicians are not to be trusted and I think you deserve the opportunity to correct this. It will not be corrected by denial of the facts. You are after all, asking me to believe you had absolutely no idea about implementation of AG21 around Australia and even the warning in your government’s 2006 SOE report. Of course you are all busy with so many issues to attend to. You are however aware of it now. What will your policy be regarding AG21? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 5:59 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy There is nothing to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. Councils can use any number of excuses to justify their actions. The only thing that matters is whether it is within the State alas which control them. I would also be interested to know at what point in the last 20 years yu formed the conclusion that this declaration was a gross threat. I can honestly tell you that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 5:44 PM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should you win government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring overseas? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 4:32 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy Councils should not misuse a 20 year old agreement. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 1:17 PM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. And what about the warning issued by your government in the 2006 SOE report regarding councils exceeding their legislative authority by implementing Agenda 21? Did you or the party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with this assessment? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 10:06 AM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy No we do not endorse a per capita budget. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 9:00 AM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, As per enclosed, do you endorse the per capita approach to emissions (see encl)? One other thing, when your government warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were exceeding their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did you or the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties? May I wish you and your family a safe Christmas and wonderful New Year. 
Regards Graham Williamson.

More Food from the Wild and Your Yard – Graft Fruit Trees!

Click here to view the original post.
LoquatVeneerGraft4

Despite a smashed thumbnail, the author bravely grafts a loquat tree in his food forest.

I once did a horticultural analysis of a property way out in the scrublands. The owner had good clean water, no real neighbors, a great location… and hot, fast-drying, mineral-poor sand that was really, really bad for gardening.

There was no couching it. I had to tell him: this area just won’t cut it for most of your planned annual gardening projects. It will barely support much in the way of fruit or nut trees.

What it did have was a decent amount of native American persimmon trees. They were dwarfed by drought and stress, but they were strong and alive. That said, I saw very few with fruit.

With antive persimmons you deal with a variety of drawbacks. Unlike their cultivated Japanese persimmon relations, they’re dioecious. That means you have male and female trees – and you need both to get fruit. The male won’t make fruit but it does provide the pollen that allows the females to fruit.

Japanese persimmons are self-fertile, plus they make hefty, sweet fruit that’s very worth growing. They’re also regularly grafted onto American persimmon rootstock.

Seeing the wild trees gave me an idea: why not use the existing trees as rootstock for Japanese persimmons? They’re already established and growing in poor soil, making them a perfect support for a higher-producing and delicious variety of improved persimmon!

Sometimes our first observations aren’t the best. You might see a crabapple with lousy fruit in your yard and think “I hate that thing! I’ll tear it out and plant a good apple in its place!”

Step back and think about it: maybe that tough tree is a resource you can use. With grafting you can go nip some twigs off good apple trees and just graft them onto the tree you don’t like. If it’s a happy and healthy mature tree, use it! If you can graft fruit trees, you can grow more food for less money.

Another interesting factoid to consider: you know those stupid ornamental pears people grow for the blooms? You can graft REAL pears onto them. There are folks doing that in California right now by illegally “guerilla grafting” street trees:

Doesn’t that change the landscape a bit? Ornamental trees are generally a non productive liability… productive trees are a serious asset. If you’ve got ornamental pears, plums, peaches, apples, etc… why not switch them up by grafting on some good varieties?

Grafting In Local Woods and Property

Here’s another thought for you.

In my neighborhood there are wild persimmons growing here and there around the block. Some of these are on empty lots and in unused property with absentee owners. We don’t know how bad things are going to get in the future so it makes sense to grow as much food as possible near our houses… even if that food is on other people’s land right now.

Wild persimmon fruit is only found on 50% of the trees (since the other half are male). That fruit is about 1″ in diameter, plus it’s astringent and seedy.

I have Japanese persimmons in my yard that make fruit that looks like this:

Hachiya1

That fruit is as large as a beefsteak tomato and just as delicious (if not more so).

Though the legalities are rather grey, I don’t think anyone would really mind if I were to take buds off my Japanese persimmon tree and graft them into the wild trees here and there around the neighborhood. People will find it rather puzzling, sure – but be upset by it? I doubt it. Heck, at the very worst all I’ve done is improve somebody’s tree. Hehhehheh.

Just thinking out loud here. In your local woods you may have quite a few trees growing which could be judiciously improved, turning them into fruit-production machines rather than marginally useful wild specimens.

Grafting Is Easy

I know what many of you are thinking: “All the above is nice, Dave… but I don’t know how to graft fruit trees!”

I understand that feeling. I was in your shoes for a long time. Grafting was something that seemed… complicated. Planting beans? No big deal. Drying fruit? Easy.

Grafting? OMIGOSHNO! THAT LOOKS HARD!

Well… it takes a little whittling experience (unless you go this route)… and a couple of decent tools… but it isn’t really hard. If you’d like a quick illustrated guide, click here. Though it states that wood should be dormant, I’ve been able to successfully graft in summer here in Florida, at least on loquat trees.

One of my favorite (and most successful) ways to graft is called “veneer grafting.” At my site you can see how I saved the genetics of an improved loquat tree hit by a string trimmer by grafting some of its buds onto some seedling loquats.

Don’t worry about messing up. We all mess up. There’s no harm in trying something new.

This spring I grafted a big, sweet improved plum onto a sour native plum tree. I did five grafts – one took:

WildPlumGraft1

The leaves on the grafted plum variety are about 10 times the size of the weenie leaves on its native plum host. The author finds this strangely hilarious.

Now, in the fall of the same year, that branch is about 3′ long. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have it bear fruit this coming spring.

Get yourself a sharp pocketknife, some pruning shears, a roll of grafting tape and your courage… then start experimenting.

Grafting can help you get food from unproductive trees and lots – harness it and you’ll be just that much more prepared for an uncertain future.

Save

The post More Food from the Wild and Your Yard – Graft Fruit Trees! appeared first on .

Top 3 DIY Survival Projects That Could Save Your Life in the Coming Collapse

Click here to view the original post.

Anyone who is awake can clearly see the social and economic turmoil all around us. The need to prepare has never been more clear. The three DIY projects described in this article could be part of a ‘Plan C’ survival strategy. Plan A might be to shelter in place. Plan B might be to bug out to a cabin. But what if Plan B doesn’t work out? What if the cabin gets overrun by combatants? Or, what if you can’t make it to the cabin for some reason? This is why it’s prudent to have at least one additional backup plan.

All of the projects explained here are built with woven polypropylene sandbags filled with local soil, sand and/or gravel. When filled with moist subsoil and solidly compacted they are called earthbags. Gravel bags are sandbags filled with gravel. These are often used on lower course to prevent wicking of moisture up into the earthen wall.

Sandbags or earthbags have been used for hundreds of years for military bunkers and other fortifications, and flood control. Sandbags are low cost, easy to transport, simple to fill and require only a few simple tools such as a shovel. They are extremely bullet and blast resistant. (Check YouTube for some interesting bullet tests on sandbags.) The original jute burlap bags have been replaced by much stronger polypropylene bags. The same material is also available in rolls, which is often used to build earthbag tube walls. Tubes are faster and easier to work with than bags since you don’t have to stop and tie the ends of bags.

In addition to the projects outlined here, another good possibility is military style sandbag fortifications such as bunkers for protection if shooting breaks out. Empty sandbags don’t take up much space, so the bags can be stockpiled and the fortifications built after the collapse as needed. Building the fortifications in advance might draw unwanted attention.

Kelly Hart and I have been providing earthbag training materials for about 15 years. We have thousands of pages of free material on various websites. For beginners, be sure to check out this Step-by-Step Earthbag Building tutorial. http://www.instructables.com/id/Step-by-Step-Earthbag-Building/

1. Bomb Resistant Earthbag Dome Fallout Shelter


DIY survival projects
This multi-purpose shelter can be used for many different purposes such as a root cellar, storm cellar, tool shed or fallout shelter in case of a nuclear event. These shelters can be built for as little as $300 dollars. Domes are extremely resistant to wind and so are particularly well suited for storm shelters in tornado or hurricane country. Adding soil and grass on top makes the dome more blast and fallout resistant, but is optional. You can bury the dome partially or completely underground.
DIY survival projects
Tools and materials (listed left to right): woven polypropylene bags (about 18” x 30”), bucket chute (4-gallon bucket with bottom cut off), 4 or 5 heavy duty 2-gallon cement buckets, stringline, metal chisel and scrap steel for cutting barbed wire (or bolt cutters), hammer, sheetmetal slider (about 13” x 16”), 15 gauge galvanized wire, knife, wire cutters, tape measure, 4-point barbed wire, corner guide, grub hoe or grape hoe, level, tampers, bundle 500 bags, shovel.

This video shows the main steps of construction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ODplmnpSts
Complete building details: http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Build-an-Earthbag-Dome/

2. Underground Earthbag Survival Shelter

DIY survival projects
This round earthbag shelter for up to 4-5 individuals is designed for survival through disaster, plague, etc. It is low cost, durable and practical. This shelter is designed for DIYers on a tight budget who will do most everything by hand. Complete instructions available from Dream Green Homes http://dreamgreenhomes.com/plans/survival.htm include numerous key details not evident on the plan: venting, roof framing, how to reduce excavation by 50%, drainage, water supply, etc. I have not seen a better, more practical survival shelter plan.
When I designed this survival shelter, I had four key concepts in mind: practicality, simplicity, safety and cost. Each concept is discussed in more detail below.

DIY survival projects

Practicality
Round structures enclose more space for a given amount of materials. There are no dead corners or wasted space. Round earthbag structures are the easiest shape to build. Poly tubes (the easiest and fastest method) or poly bags (lower cost if recycled and suitable for someone working alone) are easily shaped into curved or round shapes. A tube filling machine is very efficient and highly recommended. http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/hyperadobe-quick-wall-machine/

Simplicity
Another main advantage is simplicity of construction. What could be simpler than filling and stacking bags of earth? Almost everything you need to know is freely available on the Internet. The main skills can be learned in a few minutes simply by being shown or watching a video. My Naturalhouse YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/naturalhouses shows all steps of construction. And most people already have the basic tools around the house – shovels, buckets, garden hose, ladder. The other few tools required can be easily made or purchased inexpensively.

Safety
Round structures are inherently stronger than rectilinear structures. This means the enormous forces of soil against walls below grade (many tons of pressure) will be transferred around the structure. This concept is often stated “round is sound.”

3. Hidey Hole Survival Shelter
DIY survival projects

The Hidey Hole can be adapted to most any environment including mountains, forests and deserts.
The Hidey Hole provides a defensible, affordable and relatively fast survival shelter suitable for year-round use. It can be adapted to most any environment including mountains, forests and deserts. In addition to providing emergency shelter, the Hidey Hole could also be used to provide storage space for survival supplies in case of a SHTF scenario. The scale of the project is small enough that several shelters could be built to spread the risk of your supplies being stolen or damaged. Use whatever materials are available locally as much as possible. For instance, this shelter could be completely concealed in forested/mountainous terrain using stone, logs, soil and vegetation. A carefully concealed Hidey Hole would nearly undetectable if built correctly. The closest thing I’ve seen to the Hidey Hole is a shelter built by minimalist Ran Prieur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odg8IqoogTE

DIY survival projects
Hidey Hole shelter details:
– 79 square feet interior
– circular shape resists thrust of surrounding soil
– earth-sheltering helps keep living space comfortable
– excavated sand or soil can be used to fill the earthbags
– use 6 mil plastic sheeting on all sides, floor and roof as a moisture barrier
– curved roof provides additional headroom inside and helps shed water
– the dry stacked stone wall (no mortar) doesn’t have to be perfectly constructed stone masonry (make it look as natural as possible)
– you could build in a rocky area and use the existing stone to maintain a natural appearance
– tiny twig stove for heating and cooking can be handmade from salvaged materials
– the door could be made of slab wood or recycled wood at no cost and simply wedged into place without hinges or door frame (a door just large enough to crawl through would provide additional concealment)
– easy to adapt the basic concept to make something that suits your needs

More Free Desert Shelter Plans http://5892-presscdn-26-36.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Desert-Shelters-PDF.pdf and http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/earthbag-hidey-hole-shelter/

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Top 3 DIY Survival Projects That Could Save Your Life in the Coming Collapse appeared first on .

You better have a plan “B” when it all falls apart or you may not survive!

Click here to view the original post.

Hello, my friend and welcome back!  Having a plan is good, but having a backup plan is critical!  Most of us know from our everyday life that things seldom go as planned and that…

The post You better have a plan “B” when it all falls apart or you may not survive! appeared first on American Preppers Online.

FIRE ON THE MOUNTAIN: EAST TENNESSEE WILDFIRES AND HOW YOU CAN HELP!

Click here to view the original post.
facebooktwittergoogle_plus

I have no doubt that most of you are aware that wildfires raged across eastern Tennessee earlier this week decimating Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge and the surrounding areas along the way. These fires are not the only ones that have been burning across the southeast in recent weeks, but the they are the first to directly impact large and heavily populated cities. This was the scene earlier this week in Gatlinburg and throughout Sevier County…

Apocalypse: Gatlinburg

Fire on the mountain (language warning):

The mountains of eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and northern Georgia are an outdoor lover’s playground throughout the year. If you live in the region, you have probably visited Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, enjoyed the natural beauty of the area and the warm hospitality of their people. We grew up just a few hours away and visited often, never minding the ride to get there, but rather enjoying the magnificence of the view throughout the trip and we always felt right at home once we arrived. It is for this reason and many others that this disaster is personal for us and we wanted to do whatever we can to help. Watch this space for possible updates and any future wildfire relief efforts.

To this end, I spent most of today (Wednesday 11/30) on the phone with several national and local agencies trying to get the first hand scoop from the experts on the ground on the best way to have offer the most benefit to the most people possible. What follows is what I learned.

As of my writing this article, the local chapter of the American Red Cross reports that in terms of their ability to meet the immediate needs of the community in terms of basic supplies (food, water, shelter, clothes, toiletries, etc.), they and all of the local agencies they are talking with are “at capacity” after having seen a tremendous outpouring of support from the state and region. That’s GREAT news! However, the reality is this will not be a 72 hour, five day or one week disaster and that is where we can step up and really make a difference. From every person I spoke with today, the main way we can help is by donating money to support the ongoing efforts that will be required to help Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge and the good people of eastern Tennessee going forward. With that in mind, my work today led me to three agencies where you can donate funds and be certain that your money will go directly to help the people of Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge and the good people of eastern Tennessee. If you would like to make a donation to help with the wildfire relief efforts that are ongoing in these devastated areas, based on my personal conversations I can suggest the following agencies with full confidence and without hesitation:

AMERICAN RED CROSS – EAST TENNESSEE LOCAL CHAPTER

The East Tennessee chapter of the American Red Cross is currently housing 1,400 people nightly in shelters that have been displaced by the wildfires, additionally providing food, transport and pet care to everyone. For reference, keep in mind that it takes $1000 to provide this assistance to 100 people daily, so know that every dollar you donate will be making a real difference in the lives of every day people just like yourself.

If you would like to donate to the East Tennessee Chapter of the American Red Cross, please send your check to:

ATTENTION LORI MARSH
American Red Cross East Tennessee
6921 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, Tennessee 37909

You can follow the East Tennessee Chapter on Facebook too.

==================================================================================

GATLINBURG RELIEF FUND (SMARTBANK)

This fund has been established by the Gatlinburg Chamber of Commerce and will disperse all raised funds directly to local impacted citizens to be used at their discretion. This will put funds directly in the hands of those that need it most.

If you would like to donate to the Gatlinburg Relief Fund (SMARTBANK), here is the link to donate with a debit/credit card:
https://app.mobilecause.com/form/j-ECXA

If you would like to send a check/money order please make it payable to: Gatlinburg Wildfire Relief Fund

Please mail the check to:

SmartBank
P.O. BOX 1910
Pigeon Forge, TN 37868

Check out the donation link on the Smartbank Facebook page:

==================================================================================

TENNESSEE VALLEY COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS

If you would like to take a longer term approach to this disaster and offer help to those that may have lost everything and do not have adequate insurance to help them get back on their feet, the TVCH is a good option. For more information, visit tvchomeless.org and to donate money, call 865-859-0749. If you know of anyone that has lost their home, the Homeless Assistance Hot Line is 888-556-0791.

==================================================================================

If you are interested in doing what you can to help our nearby neighbors get through these very trying times, I hope this information helps you make that happen. Remember friends, disaster doesn’t care about our schedules and does not play favorites. There, but for the grace of God, go I. Disaster can strike anyone, anywhere, at any time. I hope you will do what you can to help.

To keep up with the most up to date information regarding the ongoing disaster unfolding in eastern Tennessee and how you can help further, check out the great coverage from WBIR , WATE and the KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL. Please be aware that unlike the three mentioned above, I have not spoken to all of these organizations and agencies listed on those pages personally.

Andrew Duncan captured drone video of the damage done by the fires in Gatlinburg and Sevier County.

Please help us maximize the impacts of this post! If you have a presence on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc.), SHARE this post with your friends and family and let’s see how much good we can do together.

Bugging Out To the Back Yard: Cold Weather Training

Click here to view the original post.

Winter is coming on fast, and of course, as it gets colder it gets harder to survive if you become lost or injured miles from home. However, if you have a backyard, then you have a controlled training environment to test your gear, skills and to see if you have the will to carry on despite the challenges.

What you will learn in your backyard is that you will never be as warm in a tent as you would in your own bed, the ground mat will never be as soft as your bed, and that your stomach seems to be always growling for more food. The cold burns up calories, it dries your skin out, and it makes your nose drip.

No more flipping a light on to stumble down a warm hallway to the bathroom at midnight, no, when it’s below freezing a trip to the cat hole or latrine is a monumental task. You need the training, however, you need to realize that getting lost or hurt out in the woods puts you in a survival situation, a sometimes-deadly one, and it will take all you have to survive. You need to know how cold it really gets at night in the middle of January, how hungry you really become, and how easy it is to die if you make the wrong decision.

In a controlled environment, you won’t die, but you will learn from mistakes that could be fatal 20 miles from home at 2am when it’s hovering around Zero.

Use your backyard to figure out what ground insulation works best, to see just how warm your expensive winter sleeping bag really is, and are your hiking boots as warm as the manufacturer claims.

Can you start a fire when your fingers are stiff from the cold, can you start one when it is snowing or sleeting out? If you cannot start one in your own backyard, how can you possibly do so out in the wilds when its dark, cold and the wind is howling?

In today’s working world Saturdays and Sundays are not always the weekend, but any day of the week can work to set up a survival scenario in your backyard. Prepare a game plan, you are heading home from work when your car breakdowns or you are on a hike and get lost. Of course, your car is disabled in your driveway and you are lost in your backyard.

The point is for training purposes, you have to now survive outside the home with just what was in your car or backpack, and keep it real. Do not stuff 120 pounds of food and creature comforts and have your pack stationed on the back porch. Pack what you think you should carry on a hike, and have what you think you would need in your car, no cheating. It doesn’t help you survive a real situation.

Have you ever slept in your car overnight when it’s below freezing, you probably won’t sleep much, and any food you have is liable to be eaten in the first few hours? Learn from this.

Can you survive out of your backpack in the backyard, it’s getting dark and you are tired from working, but you would be tired from hiking all day as well, so it feels realistic. Shelter first because its cold and you need to get out of the wind, a fire is next and then an assessment of food, water, and other gear. Recording your ordeal would be perfect, and be honest in your assessments. Above all else, learn from your experience.

That fancy one-person tent went up easy in the living room, but you had a devil of a time with a slight breeze and cold hands as it was coming on to darkness.

After 24 hours of this, you will know, what you need and what you really do not need to survive the night or several nights. What food keeps you satisfied and that potato chips and Oreos are not designed for survival situations, and the call of nature is not as easy as you may think when bundled up in a parka and thermal underwear, that is if you thought to have thermals with you.

The post Bugging Out To the Back Yard: Cold Weather Training appeared first on Preparing for shtf.

Pistol vs Revolver: Which is the Better Bug Out Gun?

Click here to view the original post.

Ever since the semi-automatic pistol was invented, there has been a considerable degree of controversy over whether these guns or revolvers are better.  Each of these handguns has advantages and disadvantages.

If you are looking for the perfect handgun for bugging out, you can consider the pros and cons presented in this article while you are making your choices.  Bear in mind that the gun that looks best for you as a beginner, intermediate shooter, or expert may also look different.

When evaluating guns for bugging out, you should always be aware of how your abilities change and also how your view the situations you may encounter.

Semi-automatic Pistols Pros and Cons

Pros

The most popular type of handgun in use today for protection is the semi-automatic pistol. The main reasons people choose these guns include the high capacity magazines, reliability, less recoil, the triggers are easier to use, the sights are better, and they fire faster.

The ability to shoot quickly with a pistol is one of the most important advantages of this type of firearm. Most people who use semi-automatic pistols would rather be able to fire off several bullets even if they aren’t as well placed rather than rely on one or two shots that were better aimed.

At the end of the day, this belief can be a “pro” to some, but make others with more experience think twice because surviving a gun fight is still very much about hitting the optimal place on the adversary as quickly and efficiently as possible.   That being said, the fact that a semi can carry 12 – 20 bullets versus 5 or 6 in a revolver still gives you the chance to hit multiple targets if needed. Since the semi-automatic also come with better sights these days, the high capacity magazines definitely add up to an advantage over the revolvers.

Semi-automatic pistols are also much easier to reload.  Since the magazines are smaller and more compact, you can also carry several of them pre-loaded and be ready to fire again in a matter of seconds.  On the other hand, the speed loader for a revolver can be quite bulky and take more time to reload.  Even if you plan on carrying them. It is still easier to fit a semi magazine into your pocket.

Cons

There are few drawbacks with a semi-automatic pistol.  First, they must be kept meticulously clean.  They can also be very picky with the ammunition that will go through them without causing damage or jams.  For a semi-automatic pistol, the cartridges must have the proper shape for reliable feeding.  It must also have enough powder in the case to fully function the slide without battering and breaking the internal parts. The case must have the proper head spacing so that it moves easily in and out of the chamber without hanging up.

A semi-automatic pistol to a new shooter can be complicated because they must learn how to operate slides, slides stops, magazine releases, decockers, and safeties.  In addition, some individuals are not strong enough to pull back the side. This problem is as old as the pistol design itself because of the heavy recoil spring and the small width of the slide.   If you have problems fully pulling back the slide, but still want to have a semi for your bug out gun, try the following:

  • First, hold the back of pistol slide in the grooves with your left hand.
  • While holding the frame of the pistol in your right hand, with your trigger finger outside of the trigger guard, push the frame forward to work the slide. This will load the chamber of the pistol. The reason this works is that it takes less muscle power to push the frame forward than it does to pull the slide back.

Another problem with pistols is that if the magazines are lost or broken your pistol turns into a single-shot weapon. If your pistol has a magazine safety and you have lost your magazines this pistol will not be able to fire at all.

When compared to revolvers, semis have limited energy and penetration. In some shooting scenarios, limited penetration could be an advantage, however, it will not work in other situations. For example, a  nine-millimeter hollow point projectile is much less likely to penetrate multiple walls then the classic    357 Magnum projectile.  On the other hand, if you need to get past low-grade body armor or shoot longer distances, the lack of penetration can leave you with a serious problem on your hands.

If you keep your pistol with a loaded round in the chamber. It is to your advantage to have a pistol that has a safety or a decocker to keep the pistol from accidentally discharging if the trigger is pulled.

Pistol malfunctions represent the greatest problem with semi- automatic pistols when compared to revolvers.  You must know how to recognize and clear the four most common different types of pistol malfunctions.  While the following steps may not seem complicated, bear in mind they can cost you in terms of valuable concentration and time in an actual situation.

The Hang fire

  • The trigger is pulled and no bang. A hang fire occurs when there is a delay in the powder being ignited.
  • Keep the pistol pointed down range for about 30-60 seconds to ensure the round will not go off.
  • Remove the magazine.
  • Clear the pistol by pulling the slide back.
  • Check the chamber to ensure that it is empty.
  • Reinsert the magazine.
  • Clamber a new round.

Squib load

  • This is an extremely deadly malfunction that can cause serious injury or death to the shooter.
  • It is caused when a bullet doesn’t leave the barrel when fired and a second bullet hits the front bullet causing a bulged or a ripped open barrel.
  • If there is the possibility of a squib load, the sound of the round in question would be quieter than normal.
  • If something doesn’t sound right, clear the pistol, lock the slide back, and check the barrel for obstructions.
  • To check the barrel use a pencil down the barrel to feel for any obstructions.
  • If there is an obstruction or a bulged barrel, stop shooting and take the pistol to a gunsmith for repair.
  • If the barrel is clear, you should still take the pistol to a gunsmith for a safety check.
  • A squib load can be caused when a round has a primer, but little or no powder in the case.

Failure to feed

  • Is when a pistol fails to feed the next round from the magazine into the chamber.
  •  In this situation, the slide will not be all the way forward because the round did not travel all the way that is needed to be chambered.
  • To fix this problem, first, remove the magazine from the pistol. Then remove the round from the magazine well if it hasn’t already fallen out.
  • Put a fresh magazine in the pistol and chamber the round.

Stovepipe

  • A stovepipe happens when a spent casing fails to eject correctly. This causes the spent casing to get trapped upright in the ejection port.
  • The stovepipe is caused by not holding the pistol correctly or limp wristing.
  • To clear the pistol remove the magazine.
  • Lock the slide to the rear to remove the spent casing.
  • Put a fresh magazine in the pistol and chamber the round.

Revolvers Pros and Cons

Pros

Revolvers are known for their simplicity and dependability.  They are extremely safe handguns to operate in either single or double action mode.  New shooters can grasp how they function easily.  Revolvers take a minimum of training to learn how to use.   Another reason some individuals prefer to carry revolvers is that they simply do not need to worry about having the strength to pull the slide back on a pistol and chamber a round.

It is very easy to recover brass from a revolver. When the revolver is empty, just swing out the cylinder and push the extractor rod. The spent cartridges will fall into your hand.  From there the brass can be saved in your pocket and used with reloading equipment later on to make a new bullet.

Revolvers are also far more forgiving in terms of ammunition choice.  Basically, if the ammunition fits in the cylinder and the cylinder locks, the revolver should fire the bullet.  While you should never use ammunition that is too hot for the gun in question, a revolver will take a lot more variance than a semi-automatic pistol.

Cons

Revolvers only have a few drawbacks as a prime personal protection sidearm. They have a limited capacity, are extremely slow to reload, and the cartridges which they shoot can be too heavy for city or in home use. To fix these problems, practice with the speed loaders regularly and carry ammunition that will not shoot through walls.

In conclusion, there are pros and cons associated with both semi-automatic pistols and revolvers.  At times, you may think that the revolver is the best bug out gun for your needs; while a semi-automatic pistol may seem more appealing to others. As Jeff Cooper would say: “The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable but mandatory.”   In the end, this is a highly personal choice, and the best gun will be the one you have with you and know best how to use.

If you have any comments, please put them in the comment section below.

Further Reading

 

About Fred Tyrell:

I am an Eagle Scout and a retired police officer. I love the great outdoors and I am very conservation minded. It is my wish to pass along to other generations what I have learned in my lifetime. I am a champion marksman with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. You can read more of my articles on Survivor’s Fortress.

Sports Teach Survival Skills for a Lifetime

Click here to view the original post.

Guest Post Written By: Eileen O’Shanassy

Sports That Teach Survival Skills for a Lifetime

Sports can certainly increase a child or teen’s interest in exercise, sense of well-being, and foster a respect for teamwork, but did you know that some sports also work to instill survival skills and have been practiced since ancient times? Here are six sports that teach some survival skills that, with practice, will remain for the rest of your life.

Archery

Whether you use a compound bow, a simple longbow, or an Olympic re-curve, archery is simple: use a bow and arrow to hit a target at a predetermined distance. If you can make a bow and arrow in a survival situation, you can potentially use your marksmanship skills to bring down large or small game to survive. It’s a great skill to have and a great way to exercise arm strength and coordination.

Track and Field

Cross-country running, the 100-meter dash, hurdles, and other track and field events promote cardiovascular fitness and breath control while under constant stress, which can keep you motivated and active in any survival situation. It’s important to be able to exert yourself for long periods without losing energy, even though in the wilderness you should try to conserve energy by moving as little as possible. Running is great for overall endurance and can help work to make your body ready for many kinds of stressful situations.

Martial Arts

Depending on the type of martial art, these forms teach different fighting skills that can be used to protect yourself from an attacker. When learning martial arts, it’s best to focus on schools and styles that emphasize sparring as well as forms. In an urban environment, martial arts could potentially help defend against a mugger.

Swimming

Competitive swimming emphasizes speed, efficiency, and proper technique when moving through the water. If you should find yourself in the ocean or other body of water during an emergency, you can use some swimming skills to keep yourself afloat until help arrives or get yourself to shore.

Weight Lifting

Weight lifting isn’t just about raw strength, it’s about proper breathing and coordination of muscles. Ensuring that all parts of your body can work together in harmony can help you carry heavier loads. There’s also the strength-building aspect to consider in this exercise form.

Competitive Fishing

Competitive fishing, especially for bass, can give you the skills to catch an evening’s dinner from a nearby river if you’re out in the wild and have the necessary tools. At least, competitive fishing will hone your angling skills. Cleaning and cooking the fish is its own skill set that you must work at.

There are many different types of exercise and training that can help prepare your body to be ready for anything, but a few can also help with practical survival skill as well. You can click here to learn more about different coaching and exercise methods and how to use them in your life for skills that last you a lot longer.

The post Sports Teach Survival Skills for a Lifetime appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Stockpile Supplies at Multiple BOL

Click here to view the original post.

Everyone knows how important it is to stockpile supplies such as food, water and other necessities for an emergency. A small percentage of people are well prepared, many are somewhat prepared and most aren’t prepared at all. But nobody can say they weren’t warned that they could be without these crucial items should a crisis occur.

There is much less awareness of the need to have stockpiles of food, water and other items in at least two different locations, preferably three. Preppers who have gathered large amounts of bottled water, canned food, toiletries and a host of can openers, flashlights, batteries, radios, blankets, clothing, first-aid kits and weapons are putting all of their eggs in one basket if they keep everything in the same place.

A home is a great place to stockpile food, water and other essentials. That’s where I keep my largest supplies because that’s where my family and I are most likely to be when the stuff hits the fan. And even if I’m not home at that exact moment, I will probably be in a position to return there shortly.

My home is not only where I keep the majority of my emergency supplies, it’s also the place that I’ve spent time and money to secure. If a breakdown in society occurs following a disaster, I want to be as prepared as possible to protect my family and belongings.

But what if my home is destroyed or severely damaged by whatever crisis occurs? If that’s the only place where I have my emergency goods stockpiled – and either I can’t get to them or they’ve been destroyed by the disaster – I will have wasted a huge amount of time and money preparing for the exact scenario in which I find myself.

It is absolutely essential that you keep supplies in multiple locations. If you have a year’s supply of goods at home, keep six months’ worth in at least one other place. If you have six months’ worth of goods at home, store at least three months’ worth at a secondary location.

Now the question becomes, exactly where should my second and perhaps third locations be? There are several important factors to consider. For one, these other locations need to be close enough to get to, yet far enough away that they’re unlikely to be affected by the same disaster that just did a number on your home.

Just as important, these locations have to offer the same features that your home does – a cool, dry place where food and water won’t be negatively affected by sunlight, moisture and extreme temperatures.

Of course, it’s up to you to decide where those second and possibly third locations will be, but among the possibilities are a storage unit that you can rent, a root cellar or storage bunker on your property but away from your house, inside a separate building that you own in town, within a building that a trusted friend owns, or buried in a remote area where only you would think to look.

Finally, as all good preppers know, don’t advertise the fact that you have stockpiled food and water for an emergency in your home and at other locations. People will remember that, and you could have some unwelcome visitors following a disaster.

The post Stockpile Supplies at Multiple BOL appeared first on American Preppers Network.

How to Get Fuel Mileage from Your BOV

Click here to view the original post.

by Ryan

Many survivalists and preppers have a vehicle specifically designated for bugging out. If your bug out location is more than about 30 miles from your home, a vehicle may be your best option. However, fuel may be hard to come by. In many disaster scenarios fuel costs would skyrocket, gas stations would be flooded by vehicles, or the government would seize as much fuel as possible. What you have in your tank may be the extent of your fuel supply.

So how do you make the most of it? Conditions will likely not be ideal for fuel mileage. You will probably have stop-and-go traffic or road blocks to deal with. You may have to weave between stalled cars or even head off-road to avoid obstacles. There could even be situations where you are being pursued by assailants or government vehicles. This can kill your gas mileage. In this article I want to cover some simple steps you can take to make sure you get every possible mile out of the fuel you have.

Driving Habits

I know most people immediately think about the vehicle when trying to improve gas mileage, but how you drive the vehicle can affect your MPG as much as 15%. First, try not to drive over 65 MPH. I know this is no fun on the highway, but it makes a big difference. As you get to higher speeds, wind drag gets to be an issue. This will make your engine work much harder to maintain your speed. The extra few MPH would only get you to your destination a few minutes faster, so unless you are being chased you need to slow down.

One of the easiest ways to maintain good gas mileage is to use the systems build into the vehicle.  Cruise control is one of those systems and will keep you from going too fast and keep you from having to accelerate when your speed dips.  Also, overdrive is a good way to save some gas.  This is the most efficient gear any vehicle has, so once you get up to speed on the highway make sure you shift into overdrive.  It will make a difference in your gas tank.

You also need to watch your starts and stops. The worst practice for gas mileage is racing to a stop light, slamming on the breaks, and then gunning the throttle when it turns green. Your goal is to slowly roll up to red lights and gently accelerate when they turn green. Pay attention to anything several hundred yards ahead and gently let off the gas instead of using your brake pedal. If you can avoid coming to a complete stop, then you are doing it right.  These practices make a huge difference in how far a tank will take you.

Another way to suck the MPG out of your vehicle is air conditioning. It may seem like a necessity these days, but this luxury feature drastically reduces your fuel efficiency. If you can avoid using the A/C, that would be ideal. Idling is another practice that hurts your efficiency. In a bug-out situation, sitting in one place is a probability. Instead of idling, shut off your engine and start it up again when the traffic moves. Idling is one of the most inefficient things you can do in a car.

Maintenance and Modification

Tire pressure is one of the most important factors for gas mileage. You should be checking your pressure as often as possible, and do not rely on sensors alone to alert you that they are low. Low tire pressure creates more resistance on the road, and that means burning more gas. Your tires should be labeled with the ideal PSI, so be sure to stay within that range or just below the maximum.

Your fuel has a lot to do with the miles you get out of it. However, extra or premium fuel is not the answer in most cases. If you have a high compression engine that suggests premium, then you need to buy the expensive stuff. It should say so right inside your fuel port. Otherwise, save some money and go with standard unleaded. You can also use an additive in your fuel to clean your injectors, and that could equate to better MPGs.

Anything that creates drag on your vehicle has to be removed unless absolutely needed. This would include roof racks, bike racks, and luggage carriers. Drag greatly affects your fuel mileage. You do not have to throw these items in the trash, but only use them when needed. You can also buy tires that reduce resistance. Most people are not aware of this, but there are actually tires specifically designed for better gas mileage. For a few extra bucks you can really increase your efficiency.

Change or clean your air filter on a regular basis. Efficient operation of any engine requires fuel, ignition, and oxygen. If you have a dirty filter, you are not getting enough oxygen to the engine. If you have the inexpensive paper filters, change them regularly. If you have a washable filter, wash it as often as you can. In dirty or off-road conditions, you must pay special attention to this.

Spark plugs are another factor in this equation… ignition. If your plugs are not operating properly, you will lose efficiency. This is an inexpensive way to ensure your engine runs smoothly. Regular oil changes are another good way to keep things going. This seems like common sense, but most people push their engines beyond the suggested life of their oil and filter. You can also ensure there is a spare tire, but that does increase the weight by around 1 %. These maintenance items are vital.

How much fuel is in your tank is a common assumption to affect gas mileage.  However, it does not move the needle as much as expected.  Whether full or empty, an unleaded tank acts about the same.  However, the weight of your vehicle can greatly affect your gas mileage.  Storing additional fuel in separate tanks is a good idea, but your other gear needs to be as light as possible.  When you are looking at bugging out, bring gear that weighs less if you have the choice.  This is especially true for heavy equipment like chain saws, generators, and pumps.

There are a few modern maintenance procedures that could make a big difference. One is an ultrasonic cleaning of your injectors. This is the only way to be sure your fuel injectors are clean. Clean injectors mean a proper ratio of air to fuel, so that is essential for good gas mileage. You can also look into having your vehicle’s computer remapped. This is not a common practice, but the computer of modern vehicles are very capable of adjustments based on fuel economy.

Alternative Power Source Vehicles

Buying vehicles that do not rely on only gasoline or converting vehicles to use alternative fuels is getting more popular. This could mean buying a hybrid and using battery power to improve your gas mileage, or it could mean buying an electric car. However, finding a working charging station may be tough. Even solar cars are getting to be a more realistic option. You have to think about how the vehicle will operate after a potential collapse.

It may mean converting a diesel into a biodiesel vehicle that can run on recycled cooking oil. If you plan to stay near civilization, you will likely always be near restaurants having a vat of used cooking oil out back. This supply of fuel will likely exists years after restaurants shut down. There are even ways to covert vehicles to be powered by firewood or compost. If you are worried about running out of unleaded, do some research and get creative.

When your goal is gas mileage and your life depends on it, focus is the key. To get the most out of your fuel, you must constantly be monitoring the condition of your vehicle and the way you drive that vehicle. It is more about a mindset than any given action. Those of us that have the right mindset know that we can tell when it is time for an oil change without looking at the calendar. We know to check the tire pressure or the air filter without being reminded. This mindset is vital.

However, to be truly ready to bug out by vehicle you must do more than that. You must have a proactive mindset. This means owning the right vehicle and modifying it if needed. It means taking steps to prepare your vehicle months before you may need it. You cannot just be good at maintenance. You must build the perfect vehicle for survival. If you take the time and make the right moves, the fuel in your tank will easily get you to safety when it counts.

9 Fire-Making Methods You Need to Know

Click here to view the original post.

The following has been contributed by Anonymous Prepper

One of the most discussed topics that I’ve seen over the years is related to starting fires. While some people go as far as learning the bow drill method so they can start one under any circumstances, others say they’re going to use a simple lighter to achieve the same result. It’s pretty funny whenever I see such replies on the survivalist boards.

I’m not going to take sides here, I’d rather do something better and let you know of all the ways to start a fire. This way you can decide for yourself which ones you should pack into your BOB or learn.

#1. Using a Lighter

This is by far the easiest way to start a fire. The vast majority of people go for either Zippo or Bic. (You can follow the debate here).Suffices to say it’s good to have lighters everywhere: inside your car, your survival bags, your pockets, inside the pouch attached to your bike – you name it!

#2. Using Matches

Matches are the next best thing for starting a fire but, just to make sure they work, you should get the waterproof kind. If not, you should at least put them in waterproof containers. Some people like to have a fire starting kit, usually a small waterproof pouch.

#3. Using a Blastmatch

The blastmatch is a very cool device whose beauty consists in the fact that you can use it with only one hand. Very useful in case you get injured and can’t use both of them. Not many preppers consider the likely scenario of them getting injured.

Here’s a video showcasing how to use it:

#4. Using a Ferro Rod

They work when you scrape off some of the rod by means of a sharp striker, thus generating sparks. The actual rod is, in fact, made mostly of iron (along with some other metals) and only has a small percentage of magnesium. Not to be confused with magnesium firestaters.

Here’s a quick youtube video showing how to scrape some tinder and then use a ferro rod to light it:

#5. Using the Flint and Steel Method

The things you use for the flint and steel method are completely different than those used in the ferro rod method. It can be a little confusing, I know.

The steel can be anything, such as piece of a high carbon, while the flint rock is something you should be able to find while bugging out. Quartz ricks will work and they are easy to find along rivers. Good video showing how to find a rock that has quartz and then use it to generate some sparks:

#6. Using a Magnesium Block

IF you have a magnesium block (from Amazon, for example, it’s really cheap), you can use the back of the blade of your knife to scrape it off for 15-20 seconds, then use the same knife to run it along the block and get those shavings to spark using friction.

Quick video on how this works as well as further explanations:

#7. Using Steel Wool and a 9V Battery

This is a lot easier than using flint and steel, magnesium or a ferro rod. The sparks come very quickly, but make sure you keep the two separated inside your backpack to avoid a disaster. All you have to do is touch the steel wool with both ends of the battery and have some tinder ready.

Tip: consider packing devices that use 9V batteries. This way, you won’t have to pack the battery for the sole purpose of starting fires.

#8. Using a Lens

The best lens you can have in your bug out bag is a small magnifying glass. If that’s something you don’t want to pack (some preppers avoid small items such as this one because every ounce counts), you can use other things to achieve the same effect: a transparent plastic bag filled with water, a Fresnel lens (they have them the size of a credit card), or even a block of ice.

The thing that makes the lens work is its focal point. Put it between tinder and the sun in such a way that the rays are focused into a single dot. The smaller the dot, the more likely it will combust.

#9. Using the Bow Drill Method

Wikipedia explains it better but, in essence, this is a last resort means of starting a fire… for when you’ve got no lighter, no steel wool and no Sun to use your magnifying glass. In essence, you need a small bow, a bearing block and a spindle. You can see a video demonstration here:

Final Word

OK, so I didn’t tell you ALL the ways to start a fire, but do you really need to know them? I doubt you’ll use potassium permanganate during your bug out. Stick to 2, 3 or even 4 from the ones above and you’ll be more than prepared to start a fire than anyone.

And if you want to take things further, why not assemble a fire starting kit for your BOB? Keep everything related to fire starting (including tinder) inside a single MOLLE pouch. You’ll have everything in one place and, if need be, you can give it to someone else to carry it for you. If you can get one that has MOLLE webbing, you’ll be able to strap it to a backpack that’s compatible (that has the same webbing).

Bugging Out 2.0: When You Need to Bug Out…Again

Click here to view the original post.

767245-300x225

Bugging Out 2.0: When You Need to Bug Out…Again

There are many of us who like to believe we’ve got it all figured out. We have a bug out location (or bug in location), a ton of equipment, supplies, arms and ammunition. We have our agricultural plan ready, permanent water supply, and we believe that we are ready for anything that may happen. We look at everyone else and laugh at their inability/unwillingness to prepare appropriately. We know that the unprepared will reap what they sow, while we will reap all the benefits of our hard work. What many of us have not considered is what would happen if our location became compromised and we had no other option but to bug out…again. In a world going to hell, nothing will be permanent and nothing will be completely secure. I’m writing this article for the very simple reason that I want you to understand that nothing that you do will guarantee safety or permanence. The only thing that you can take to the bank is that eventually, one day you and your group/settlement will have to pick up and leave.

I think that a lot of you guys right now are either writing this article off or thinking that you don’t even have a bug out location in the first place so why would you worry about it. The truth is that in any type of disaster or collapse being able to be mobile while being agile enough to be able to react quickly to changing situations will spell the difference between life and death. Often times we are so connected to our stuff that we forget that it is simply stuff and not worth dying for. This is going to be even more valid in a post-SHTF world. The fact that many of us have spent years preparing our location and gathering supplies makes the idea that we might have to leave with nothing but a backpack and a weapon makes us want to throw up, but you must be prepared to do so if you wish to live.

remote-cabin-300x225One of the biggest threats to any bug out location or prepper group will be remnants of the government wishing to consolidate resources and to “protect” the remainder of the population. I truly believe that after the collapse that the remnants of the US military/National Guard will infest the countryside, gathering up people in order to maintain a semblance of control. Hopefully, you’ll have found a location that is hidden and secure, but no matter what you do, if you’re located by either the government or even a large raiding force, you will have to leave quickly if you wish to live. The equation is simple.  If they outnumber you and have superior firepower, staying will equal death.

We must all understand that we are prepping and getting ready for one simple reason. We do everything that we do in order to give our families a chance for survival. If we make a decision to resist a superior force when it would be suicide to do so we would be no smarter than those who did nothing to prepare. Dead is dead.  Any location, no matter how amazing and how secure cannot guarantee safety and you must be ready to leave in the moments notice. You chose to prep in order to give yourself a chance to live, not preparing secondary locations or even training yourself to be able to live off the wild is tantamount to not being prepared it all.

20101017img_7376_thumb-300x201Preparation goes beyond bug out locations, food, arms/ammunition, and training. It is about considering every possible scenario and preparing for the most likely of them. Having to find a secondary location in a hurry and being able to secure and fortify practically any position is something that everyone should know because it’s not a matter of if your location will be compromised, but when.

Here is a hard reality that everyone of you should consider when thinking about living in a post-SHTF world. You have a better than likely chance of dying with everyone else. I’ll say it again.  No matter how prepared you are, no matter how many supplies you have gathered or how many guns you have, there’s a better than likely chance that you will not survive even past the first few days unless you are able to be mobile and able to think on your feet quickly. If you are married to any one place or if you have decided to defend your bug out or bug in location with your life, I wouldn’t want to bet a dollar on your chances for survival. Is it possible that your location is so well hidden and so wonderfully defended that there is no chance the you will ever be located or attacked? Yes, but would you be willing to bet your life and the life of your family on it?

 

tlw_banner2

 

Source : shtfjournal.com

About the author : Editor of SHTF Journal. Served as a Cavalry Scout from 2005-2009. Iraq Veteran.

The post Bugging Out 2.0: When You Need to Bug Out…Again appeared first on .

Siphoning Gasoline from Newer Vehicles without Damaging Them

Click here to view the original post.

 

Siphoning Gasoline From Newer Vehicles Without Damaging Them via Preparedness Advice

The other day I received this e-mail on siphoning gas from cars:

“While doing some maintenance work on my gasoline powered electrical generator, the thought struck me that back in the old days, and in case of an emergency, one could always siphon gasoline out of their car’s gasoline tank and use it to run things like generators. However, that seems to be not the case nowadays. I tried inserting a conventional siphon hose into my tank but it “bottomed-out” on some obstruction before it touched any gasoline. I looked under the hood of my car (2001 Toyota Highlander) for a place where I could tie into my fuel line. I found none.

A cursory examination of the bottom of my fuel tank revealed no drain plug. So, I went to a local auto parts store and asked the folks if they had anything to siphon or pump fuel from the tank on any modern car or pickup truck. They had no suggestions.”

In the past, I can remember when we used to siphon gas out our cars to fuel our lawn mowers or other small engines. Siphoning gas out of the older vehicles was easy, but when was the last time you tried to siphon gas out of a car? It has been years since I have tried. In a real disaster, like an EMP strike, obtaining gas from damaged vehicles may be necessary to keep older vehicles running.  This got me to wondering how to siphon gas from the new cars.

NOTE: Wondering if any vehicles will still be operating after an EMP? Be sure to read my note at the bottom of this article. If you’ve read One Second After, you may be surprised by my findings.

A little research into modern-day siphoning, revealed that all new cars have an anti-rollover valve on all the openings into a gas tank. These valves also act as a siphon prevention system, which is the reason why nearly all the siphon devices and pumps sold these days are useless. However, there is a way to do it without damaging the vehicle if you have the right tools. Most gas thieves today simply drill a hole in the gas tank, take what they can, and let the rest run out on the ground. But there is another way.

The anti-rollover valve is a ball or butterfly valve. This leaves enough room for gas to flow through the fueling tube into the tank, but if the car flips over and gas begins to flow the other direction, the ball moves to the inlet and blocks the gas from escaping or the butterfly flap closes.

siphoning

Small pumps like this one will make siphoning gas a lot quicker.

The trick to siphoning gas without damaging the vehicle is to use a small diameter, stiff hose like the ¼-inch hose that runs to your refrigerator icemaker. Cut the end at a sharp angle and spin, or “corkscrew”, the hose as you insert it. It may take you a few tries to master this.  Now, siphoning gas through this small tube by gravity is slow and can take up to eight minutes for a gallon of gas. If you can find a small hose with a hand pump like this one, it can go much faster.

You may want to carry a larger hose for vehicles that will accept it. Just remember that stealing gas in illegal and should be avoided.

pc-iceberg

ABOUT THOSE VEHICLES…

Most every reader of One Second After is convinced that virtually every vehicle on the road will suddenly stall and be incapacitated forever. Dr. Arthur T. Bradley, NASA electronic engineer and author of Disaster Preparedness for EMP Attacks and Solar Storms, disagrees. He says there are so many variables that will affect whether or not the electromagnetic surge will damage vehicles that he believes only 30% or so will be damaged. The rest may experience a slight glitch and then resume running. This doesn’t mean transportation will be a piece of cake in a post-EMP world. With millions of vehicles stranded on every type of road, bridge, and tunnel imaginable, transportation would still be difficult.

This article updated 10-24-16.

The post Siphoning Gasoline from Newer Vehicles without Damaging Them appeared first on Preparedness Advice.

Post SHTF tools of the trade: What you will need to fight back!

Click here to view the original post.

Hello, my friend and welcome back!  In today’s post, were going to look at what you will need to fight back and survive in a post SHTF world.  With the US Election rapidly coming,…

The post Post SHTF tools of the trade: What you will need to fight back! appeared first on American Preppers Online.

PREPPER BASICS Should I stay or should I go?

Click here to view the original post.

PREPPER BASICS: Should I stay or should I go? Bobby Akart “Prepping For Tomorrow” Audio in player below! On this week’s episode of the Prepping for Tomorrow program, Author Bobby Akart will continue his month long discussion of prepper basics. The Prepper’s Conundrum is Bug In or Bug Out—Should I stay or should I go? … Continue reading PREPPER BASICS Should I stay or should I go?

The post PREPPER BASICS Should I stay or should I go? appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.

Where to go when it all falls apart and staying home is not an option.

Click here to view the original post.

Hello, my friend and welcome back!  It goes without saying that when it all hit’s the fan, there will be plenty of people who will have no place to go.  Let’s say, for someone…

The post Where to go when it all falls apart and staying home is not an option. appeared first on American Preppers Online.

Survival Vehicle Choice.

Click here to view the original post.

Any vehicle in an emergency is better than nothing at all, but if you want the most practicle & advantages of vehicles, then you need to get a good 4WD (four wheel drive). I had three 4WDs when I lived in the Territory, we lived off grid, & it was the only way to get around. We had two Toyota Land Cruisers, a short wheel base & a ute, & we had a little Suzuki. I would still have the SWB, but it was stolen from our property whilst we were away looking for land interstate.

Now we live in New England NSW, & up until now we have had a Nissan X-Trail SUV. However, the wading depth (depth of water it can drive through) on this vehicle is only 400mm. Of late it has been very wet here, I would say the wettest we have experienced in the past 30 years. Weather conditions are changing!!! We have a creek to cross to get into town, as again we are living off grid in a forest. The alternate rout out & back in if the creek is in flood is all dirt & it too is subject to a lot of water.
So, we decided to get a full blown 4WD, we do already have a 4WD unregistered property vehicle (Lada), but it can not be used on the road. We sold our SUV to my Eldest son & his family for an affordable price. It is better than the ordinary sedan that they had. What we purchased is a Toyota Hilux twin cab diesel ute with a canopy on the back & a bull bar. We also added a rear view camera, & we are getting LED bar lights fitted to front & rear. So far my wife is very pleased with this vehicle, though it is larger than she has been used to driving. I love it, it gives me a feeling of security knowing that my wife can get home at night no matter which rout she has to take.

The wade depth on this Hilux is 700mm with standard suspension.

This is my youngest son’s Nissan Triton which I believe has a wading depth of 500mm. This vehicle is a good less expensive choice in 4WDs.

My Russian Lada 4WD with wide wheels & two spares on the roof.

We do not expect to ever have to evacuate our forest home, we have enough people to be able to defend it in a shtf situation short of a foreign invasion. But if we should have to leave, I feel sure the vehicles we have will get us to where we are going.

How I Plan on Bugging In

Click here to view the original post.

Written by Huples on The Prepper Journal.

Editor’s Note: This post is another entry in the Prepper Writing Contest from Huples. If you have information for Preppers that you would like to share and possibly win a $300 Amazon Gift Card to purchase your own prepping supplies, enter today.


There are multiple articles, videos, and books about bugging out and a few on bugging in. My aim here is to throw a bit of thought on the bugging in concept from my unarmed Canadian perspective. This article is more a personal ramble than a detailed ‘how to’ for others.

Bug In or Bug Out?

For me my first choice is a bug in at home though I am not sold on it as a definite concept. For this reason I have one prime bug out location (BOL) at a cottage and two secondary ones at friends’ homes. This is really a personal choice. For all those that say you are 100% dead staying at home in SHTF there are more saying you will 100% die in the woods. The truth is between the two extremes but for me I need a roof and walls so I have them at home and at the cottage. If you bug in will it work long-term? If you bug out can you get there and can you be assured of survival on arrival?

The Bug Out at the Primary Residence or Your Primary Bug Out Location (BOL)

If you do not have a wood fire and close, dense forests then I’d not even consider this. Same is required for several local water sources. Having a great knowledge of the neighborhood helps even if the neighbors are literally a knife throw away! For me I keep them both equally stocked as I am still figuring out the pros and cons of each and likely will be doing so until, and if, the actual SHTF occurs. “Two is one, one is none” seems a good rule except for BOL where many people have one main choice. So rather than having one, either bug in it home or bug out then in at a BOL, I have two. Costs more of course but if you are really preparing for the end of civilization it seems a better idea to me than focusing on only one main alternative.

Food

You should have a year’s supply of food stored in the house and the same buried nearby that you can access even if you cannot use your house. That would be a minimum for a SHTF scenario. As you go beyond this (I’d aim for twenty years supply. I have two at present) keep a year’s worth in the home or BOL and the rest in ground cached nearby in multiple locations but accessible if you cannot safely enter the home.

If you are focusing on preparing for a Winter storm, train derailment, etc. then you are preparing for something other than the end of civilization. I always prepare for the worst possible case as it makes the more likely events very easy to navigate through. This should cost you about a thousand dollars. Buy Mylar bags and oxygen absorbers. Buy strong food grade buckets and consider the gamma lids for all of them but at least four of them. Unscrew the middle, empty, add a plastic bag, and you have a toilet!

You should have a year’s supply of food stored in the house.

Buy oats, flour, pastas, sugar, extra virgin coconut oil, rice, beans, and grains (each bucket has most of these as you do not have only one or two types of food in a bucket. If you have to grab a couple and run at least you have a bit of variety) in bulk and freeze them for 72 hours to kill the critters and then decant into one gallon or smaller Mylar bags. Add in yeast and salt and spices to every bucket and you are good to go. Have a good mix of types rather than just white rice and pinto beans (these are a great staple but have a variety available).

On average each five gallon bucket is approximately one month’s food for one person but with decent foraging and careful use you can stretch this to two months. You will lose weight but so is everyone else. They stack well but are obvious so plan where you keep them carefully. Mine has asphalt added to their outside for the driveway sealing I’m never going to do. Consider the Mylar bags only in your attic placed so they cannot be seen if anyone looks into the space if the attic is not a room. Consider tins and cans stocked in under the bed containers placed under the stairs and well covered by the usual junk people have. I have a huge amount of tins and jars padded by blankets in the bottoms of boxes filled with old cassette and video tapes. If able put tins and bottles inside wall spaces which I have not as yet done.

I do rotate food but not the long-term stores. I have about ten cardboard buckets filled with a variety of everyday foods we normally eat and replace the filled pantry from these and then repurchase. This adds up quickly and we believe tins do not really expire if not used before their expiry dates.

Tools for Survival

BioLite Wood Burning Campstove – Powers most USB-chargeable devices including smartphones

A full range of gardening tools and prepping supplies is an absolute requirement as is seeds. Seeds go off so get the expensive Mylar sealed ones but spend only $10-20 on these a year. Buy a few every year and store carefully. You cannot have too many nor can you wait until SHTF to learn gardening. It is a lot of fun and not as hard as I figured it would be before I started out. Consider raised garden boxes and have lots of tarps and nails to cover these if the SHTF is radiological. Have poles and clear plastic to construct a greenhouse if, like me, you do not need one at present. Learn how to harvest seeds now and not in SHTF. I have mixed success with beans and amaranth and incredible success with most herbs. I am still learning but it is easy and fun once you get into it. I absolutely will not be gardening until after the first Winter post SHTF. This would be making myself a target.

Have three plans to cook food and make sure all three are not dependent on modern civilization. I have a wood house fire, a BioLite, and a solar cooker. I also have propane for those none long-term events when I don’t really want to cook in the living room. Have at least two good quality cast iron pans and the ability to boil water in 5-10 pint amounts on an open flame.

Have good quality foraging and wilderness skills books. Open these up frequently and look at them and try to use them. Have a large store of plastic bags and bottles. Learn how to boil can as a minimum and have a plan to dehydrate via solar large quantities of fruits and vegetables. Your pre-collapse buckets will eventually run out and your job is to use them as little as possible for as long as possible. Have some ability and knowledge to harvest tree sap for drinking and for boiling down into sugars if you live in a suitable area. Know how to harvest bark and cook it. It is tasty and full of sugars. Again do not wait until SHTF to find the axe is rubbish for this or you do not know how to peel it correctly from a living tree.

For me livestock is not possible for various reasons but if you can you should explore this and make sure you can feed them well in SHTF even if the stores never open again. Fishing rods, lines, hooks, and nets are set up at home and the cottage for us and we know how to smoke them (the fish I mean!).

If you do not sprout seeds already may I suggest you start to do so? It is easy, healthy, and tasty. Again they go off over time so buy yearly but keep all of them. Some is better than none. They also turn into plants and require very simple equipment you should have now rather than try to improvise in SHTF.

Water

Berkey Filters are excellent Prepper resources.

Berkey Filters are excellent Prepper resources.

Have at least two sources of water within easy walking range. Have a wheel barrow and buckets to transport it to cut down on the time and effort this part of your new life will take. If this is not possible you need to store thousands of gallons of water not a few cases of bottled water.

Have the ability to clean and use the water using various means. Initially I am using stored water and then the Berkey Water Filter. This is expensive but I do feel a good Berkey with four black and four white filters at my home are well worth the investment. We used it in a previous home for all our water but here it is wrapped up in a plastic tote waiting for the day I need it again. Next year the BOL gets one as well as it is an essential and essentials should work very well, for years, and be ready to use at your destination not carried there. Tablets and portable filter systems are for traveling only in my opinion. I have a lot of them so I can use them for daily living if the need arises.

Good quality rain barrels, tarps, and food grade plastic pipes should be readily available to convert rain into water for drinking, bathing, and the garden. Again I have these but they are not set up as I am not keen on screaming “prepper” to anyone who walks by the house or cottage. You should also have a large supply of large clear soda pop bottles. I do not use the stuff myself but collect them from others who do for “starting my plants”. Prefilter, lie in the sun, and consume in a couple of days. SODIS water treatment is clearly explained on the web and is an easy back up plan to provide large quantities of water if the Berkley fails.

Heating

As I said I’d not consider staying anywhere without wood heating but I live near lots of woods and in a climate that gets a bit cold in the Winter. Cold enough to freeze your nose hairs! I have a decent tent system and on top of the mattress in front of the fire it will work great especially with the sleeping system we have. I have not duplicated this at the cottage as I’d rather travel with the ability to be warm but I see the need to spend the cash at some point in the near future.

men-dj11-woodstoves-1

Wood-stoves in Northern climates will save lives in a SHTF event.

I have lots of black bags to seal the windows (see Security) and lots of cheap survival blankets to put up for heat reflection and clear plastic for the doorways. It is my number one concern as death will come swiftly to the unheated up here. In the Summer (yes it does get hot in Canada) the basement of the home stays cool and the cottage stays cool as it is on a rock system by a river.

We have decent Winter clothing in both places and SHTF clothing ready to go in the basement. I went with merino wool for the base layers but have cheaper layers to wick if I feel the need to change clothes in the Winter. I plan on getting smelly in SHTF (see Security) initially and during the Winter a weekly spot wash is all I can see doing.
Power

I would love to put up solar panels at the home and the cottage but until more people do it is just a big, fat target on me. The one home in our neighborhood with solar is not defensible and I cannot see how they expect to stay there if armed and cold people show up. One day perhaps when 25% of the homes do this I will but until then it is simply not worth the risk.

I plan to have no lights at night. Up at dawn, work hard, sleep at night when not on watch from day one in SHTF. For millennia that was the human experience and I see clinging to our current lifestyle in any form in SHTF as being risky. I can use solar lights to generate light that is brighter than the current house lights but that is for emergencies only. I am not even sure if I’d risk it then but I have it and it works. I use a few small solar panels that easily get enough power for this when set up on the 300 square foot balcony and the Biolite stove produces a bit.

I am flirting with a gas generator but for SHTF I cannot see the use. We no longer have a sump pump in the basement so really it would be for the fridge and freezer in a temporary Summer blackout.

Transportation

Our car is the bugout vehicle of choice and we keep 40 liters of gas on hand all the time but if I cannot use it then we have decent bikes with small panniers. Walking would be our main transport method so the wheel barrow is an essential bit of kit as well as good quality back packs. Other than the local area I am not planning traveling much at all in SHTF. Kayaks at the cottage would be helpful in the warmer months if a distance travel was needed but I’d not risk it without a clear destination and honestly in SHTF my local area will be the extent of my concerns.

Security

Guns run out of ammo and using them might not be a good idea if people fire back. The noise would also likely attract a lot of unwanted attention. Plus in Canada it is not as easy to equip yourself like GI Joe as it is in our neighbor to the south. I also think it creates a false sense of security but that is just my opinion. If I find a gun in SHTF I’ll carry it and use it. I have some plans on how to do that but it is not really a legal thing.

The home is defended mainly by passive means. Heavy duty iron fencing and another six-foot wooden one going up in the Spring. Having dogs means this sort of fencing is actually above suspicion and welcomed by the neighbors. Barb wire and solar motion lights go up in SHTF as I am not that sociable at the best of times. Doors, windows, and frames have the fixes easily done and available on the web but the wood pile by the garage is basically entering the ground floor in early SHTF. Stacked high and deep on tarps it won’t allow anyone to get in. We can leave the house by the ladder on the balcony as and when we feel it is safe to do so. It does mean I can be burned out but the house is concrete and looks small and uninviting compared to the neighborhood which are wood and much larger. Passive alarms on any entry point and wooden hurricane boards are further things that go up in SHTF.

Operation Enduring Freedom

The cottage goes for not looking inhabited and the already ransacked method. As a nurse I have a collection of body bags and a few of these around the place with rotting meat inside would likely put off most people along with the danger contamination signs and tape.

Both places have food and supplies in ground away from them in case of loss of the building (fire or intruders) and I have plans to evacuate and retake both places. This is situational and has some legal issues so I am not discussing it here but stay and fight to me seems more risky than running from the determined and taking it back later on. I’d definitely allow any intruders who have driven me from the place to find a large amount of alcohol that is poorly hidden. As hard as it might be to not drink it myself in SHTF I want to make sure a large group of intruders can get well drunk in this circumstance.

Both places have lots of black heavy-duty garbage bags and duct tape. All doors and windows get blacked out but, again, I am not planning to use light sources at night. In the first few months of SHTF I am also not planning to have the fires going at all and later on only at night. If it hits in the Winter this will have to change but we can stay warm enough without a fire for a week or more. Making cooking smells or showing smoke is just not worth it in the early phase of SHTF and we have planned food, clothing, and sleeping accordingly. Use a wood fire at night if possible and have no daytime smoke.

Active methods of security are bows and lots of arrows. The home entry points are blocked so anyone determined enough to scale the 9-12 foot balcony might be asked politely to not do so. We also have a lot of throwing knives and attached to long sticks, they can be useful to spear fish or any other thing dumb enough to try to get into the home. Classic historical methods of deterring intruders from your ‘castle’ and they work silently. A well-aimed piece of fire wood is also off-putting. One thing I have determined that intruders are dealt with in ways that mean they cannot every return to try again.

In both areas we have good relations with our neighbors and plan to help them out a bit depending on the SHTF. We know them and their habits and have studied them carefully for a few years. We absolutely have not revealed ourselves as preppers nor would do so in SHTF. I am hoping for a Winter event so this aspect dies off rapidly but you need to have neighbors who are allies not enemies. In a bad SHTF they are all enemies so mainly we plan to hide out and defend as best we can.

Going outside will be carefully done. The radios are only for emergency use and we would only use planned routes and times of travel to avoid people. Having worked twelve-hour nights for years it will be no issue going outside at 3am and being back by 5am. Each outside trip will be in the same outer clothes each time and no these will never get laundered. Hair and beards will grow as if we cannot heat water to clean them. After a couple of weeks your hair does not really need washing anyhow (yes we tried that!). Food intake will be rationed so we will lose weight except the day before any planned heavy work or travel when we will have a decent 4000-5000 Calorie day. This will also be a Sunday thing for us but mainly 1500-2000 calories a day the rest of the time. Fat people will stand out very quickly in SHTF.

Have one in ground food cache and two in home ones that are okay but you would happily surrender to an intruder if over powered. Giving them something very reluctantly might save you or not but is worth a try. Getting a week’s worth by emptying your “only” stores should make them happy. In a slowly evolving SHTF we will ask for food and water. We will line up for it and use anything supplied locally. Not doing so is a big red flag that you do not need the help.
After the first year we plan to advertise our health care skills if the area is stable and generally join in with whatever community is there. As both towns are old ones with a long history of water trade and lumbering I cannot see someone not starting a community in them once the population has again dropped to a normal historical size for the terrain. Skills are more important than equipment and we both have great health care skills. We also have a lot of equipment and know how to replace it. People will need to give birth and have bones fixed and cuts sutured.

Obviously offering these services will only be done when our community has sorted itself out without our help. I have no desire to be the leader nor am I willing to risk our preps before stability has occurred. I also have no desire to join a prepping community as I cannot see myself being part of either a paramilitary or hippy organization. Maybe I’ll meet some eventually that seem more suitable and I would happily store food and supplies in their BOL but I’d rather be a lone wolf than submit to some else’s authority however benign.

Location

We carefully choose our home and cottage. Both are out of the obvious way especially the cottage and both have large garden areas and plentiful trees and water very nearby. Even this step seems not enough and we are floating the idea of relocating a lot more northwards when we retire in 5-6 years. The cottage can be easily sealed off from vehicle travel and should be the primary bug in location for us. What puts me off this is knowing that the locals will drive around on ATVs with guns for a while after SHTF has happened looting all the cottage places even those not on lakes and remote. The cottage supplies are mainly buried except for old and dirty tools that work great. I see it as a Summer place and the home as the Winter place. I’m actually planning to loot abandoned lake cottages myself by kayak or snow shoe in early SHTF if at the cottage.

Walk everywhere around your locations and make careful notes as to where all water sources are including swimming pools. Note all fruit trees and clusters of wild edibles. Over time note when these are ready for harvest and learn how to store and process them. For us in Canada it is vital we know our black walnuts and acorns. The protein and fats from them is utterly essential to have.

Know all the roads and trails and rail links. Where are the out-of-town food warehouses and how can you get to them easily? If you have local bus and train services where do they normal park when not in use? Diesel is always a useful addition and our local trains have lots of spades, axes, and other goodies stored in them. Police, Fire, and Ambulance buildings should be known and considered for entry. Even if ransacked already likely you can find useful things inside.

Future

I’d like to be able to install solar and wind power after an SHTF but the cost is too much for me at present so I am looking at ways to do so from scavenging materials. Overall prepping is a hobby for me and I am hoping it never becomes my life but if it does then I will do what I can in the now to help my loved ones survive and a new community arise.

If you liked this article, please rate it.

The post How I Plan on Bugging In appeared first on The Prepper Journal.

How to Stockpile for your Motorcycle

Click here to view the original post.

by Megan

When properly modified as a bug out vehicle, a motorcycle can get you over terrain that only a handful of vehicles can traverse. It can also get you over some rough territory that would give a lot of “regular” trucks pause. The key thing things when stockpiling your motorcycle as a bug out vehicle are realistic confidence about what type of terrain it can and cannot handle and careful storage of the supplies you will need to reach your destination.

The off-road capability of a motorcycle is a huge advantage during a bug out situation because it’s very likely that the best maintained, main roads will be blocked with traffic. A motorcycle lets you get around traffic, dodge debris, and even use smaller less maintained roadways or even trails to get to your bug out destination. A motorcycle lets you confidently plan to utilize railroad beds, power line easements, and logging roads if need be as alternative routes to get out of dodge. This means having the right bike can literally save your life.

While the versatility of a motorcycle for travel is a huge advantage, storage is more limited than in a car, SUV, or truck, for obvious reasons. But once you know how to stockpile your motorcycle for a bug out situation, there’s no reason you can’t have everything you need to survive three days to a week or even longer. All it takes is some knowledge about what kind of motorcycle luggage is available and what to pack where so you experience the least impact on handling and balance of your bike.

Vulnerability Planning

When it comes to stockpiling supplies for a motorcycle bug out one of the first things that must be addressed is vulnerability. By virtue of the fact that a motorcycle is not a covered vehicle, your supplies can be negatively affected by weather conditions, thieves, or even minor accidents. Keep these three factors in mind when modifying your motorcycle and storing your supplies. If you plan ahead to combat these vulnerabilities, your motorcycle, supplies, and you stand a better chance against the unexpected.

Crash Protection

One of the biggest dangers when riding a motorcycle even in peaceful times are unexpected crashes with other vehicles. And when traversing rougher terrain, injuries from unseen debris flying up and damaging your bike and/or you as the rider is always a possibility. Both of these dangers will be even more prevalent while riding a motorcycle during a bug out situation.

Bleeding, infection, or broken bones from debris or a crash will only compound your problems unnecessarily, so make sure you, your bike, and your stockpile are well-protected. With that goal in mind, there are definitely some aftermarket motorcycle parts you will want to carefully consider to truly customize your bike to suit your needs and the rougher SHTF terrain.

Weather Conditions

The second factor to consider is weather. On a motorcycle, at least some waterproof storage is crucial and more is probably better. The ability to keep your bug out supplies dry during a rain storm or while crossing a stream, or riding through shallow flood waters, keeps your supplies intact and could just save your life.

Keep in mind there is a critical difference between waterproof and water resistant. Storage that is water resistant is great, but it doesn’t guarantee dry supplies. Canvas and leather bags are likely water resistant. Some bags will come with storm covers but don’t assume these will upgrade your bags to full-on waterproof without actually testing it out.

Waterproof means impervious to water, which means your supplies stay dry even in a heavy rain or if you ride through puddles or a shallow creek. Dry bags are designed to be waterproof and can be used inside Aluminum saddlebags or top boxes to create a completely waterproof storage area for supplies. Waterproof storage is perfect for food, first aid supplies, matches, electronics, and flares.

Security

Store valuable supplies that you cannot afford to lose in a motorcycle luggage bag that locks to your bike and has a lock on the bag itself. This provides double protection against theft. Lockable motorcycle luggage such as side cases and top boxes are hard shell and typically lock closed and also lock to the bike for increased security.

Thieves will have to break or pick the lock or steal your entire bike to get your supplies. Luggage that mounts using Velcro, magnets, or straps are not as secure as thieves can just cut the straps or cut open the bag and make off with your supplies which in a post-SHTF situation can be fatal for you. Reserve these soft-shell storage areas for supplies that won’t spell certain death if they are stolen or damaged.

Motorcycle Luggage Options

  • Panniers, also known as Saddlebags or Side Cases
  • Tail bag or Sissy bag
  • Handlebar or Fork bags
  • Top case or Top Box
  • Fender Bags
  • Stash Bag

Bag Construction and Mounting

Bags are typically soft-shell, semi-rigid, or hard-shell and can be made of various materials including most commonly fabric, leather, canvas, hard plastic, or aluminum. You will find soft-shell bags generally less expensive than hard-shell cases. Soft shell options typically attach using Velcro straps, harnesses, or magnets whereas hard shell boxes may require the installation of an external mounting stand, brackets, or frame. If given a choice, select bags with a quick release option in case you need to leave your bike and carry your gear.

What Goes Where?

There are multiple places to stockpile supplies on a motorcycle so once you plan to overcome the vulnerabilities we discussed, what you put where is largely a matter of rider preference. Large, heavy, or bulkier supplies, such as tents, tarps, or sleeping bags, should be stored lower on the bike in saddlebags or side cases and closer to the center of gravity to minimize the impact on handling and balance.

Food should primarily be stored in waterproof side cases or top boxes unless it’s packaging somehow is waterproof and crush resistant in which case smaller items can be stored in multiple fork bags in various locations.

Water be careful trying to carry too much water as it gets heavy quickly and weight can throw off the balance and handling of your bike which is dangerous and can lead to injury. Your best bet is to use a hydration pack such as the American Kargo Turbo 3.0L or the Ogio 100 OZ Reservoir, both available along with others for sale on the Bike Bandit website. If your bug out trip is long, consider several caches along your route with extra water and other supplies.

Frequently Accessed Items

Items such as your ID, wallet or money, cell phone, insurance information, other keys, at least one bottle of water and some eat on the go snacks in a tank bag. These usually attach to the gas tank of the bike using straps or even magnets and it is easily accessible even while riding. Some may even have a transparent slot or pouch for a GPS or map. The bag typically covers the gas cap so it must be removed any time you gas up. Get in the habit of removing it and taking it with you if you leave your bike as tank bags typically don’t lock shut and are more vulnerable to theft.

Tools & Spare Parts

The critical mission for any motorcycle rider when bugging out is to keep moving for as long as possible. Just about anyone can admit that a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. And when it comes to bugging out, staying ahead of the “pack” or traffic is definitely a key factor to staying alive and keeping your supplies.

So with the goal of maintaining your motorcycle in good operating condition for as long as possible, stockpile and pack the tools you need to perform maintenance or spare parts that may break or wear out and need to be repaired. Keep in mind that during a bug out you may ride faster and longer than “normal” and this can mean parts will wear or break more frequently. The following modifications can help enhance off-road capability:

  • Suspension upgrade
  • Taller Stance
  • Chain drive over belt drive
  • Tires—knobby are better
  • Protective headlight grill
  • Custom engine guard
  • Lighter Frame
  • Larger fuel tank

Any tools or spare parts that won’t succumb to water or vibration can be stored in fabric or canvas fender bags on the front or rear of your bike. Consider strapping several extra Rotopax Fuel packs to your bike to increase your range. Stockpile duplicate tools in different locations on your bike if possible just in case one fender bag tears or is shaken free during an intense period of riding.

Weapons

One of the most secure places for your gun is on your person, perhaps in a shoulder holster while riding. During SHTF you will likely want to keep at least one firearm accessible from a riding position in case you meet trouble. If you do need to disarm for some reason or possibly store additional guns and ammo on your bike, consider one of the locking panniers or purchase a small hard shell lock box that will attach securely to your bike with a locking cable through the frame.

EDC Essentials

When riding a motorcycle, do not underestimate the importance of your EDC essentials. Carry these on your person ideally. If you absolutely need more carrying space, consider a waist pouch or backpack that you can wear while riding or a sissy bag that you can quickly detach from your bike and wear if you must make a run for it on foot. You’ll want to have your first aid supplies and any survival medicine reference materials included in this backpack so that if you are separated from your bike and hurt you can treat your injuries.

Choose your motorcycle luggage options with thought to planning for vulnerabilities and when storing your supplies be sure to consider how weight, balance, and handling of your bike might be impacted. Make sure you practice riding over different types of terrain you might encounter while bugging out so you thoroughly understand how your bike will respond in different scenarios. With advanced planning and some patience, you can modify and stockpile your motorcycle with everything you need to get from your home to your bug out location and beyond if need be.

Bug out power: Keeping your electronics charged while bugging out.

Click here to view the original post.

Hello my friend and welcome back!  In today’s post, we are going to take a look at the challenge of keeping your portable electronics charged while bugging out.  We will also take a look…

The post Bug out power: Keeping your electronics charged while bugging out. appeared first on American Preppers Online.

10 Must-Haves for Your Pet’s Bug-Out Bag

Click here to view the original post.

The problem with emergencies is that we’re almost never prepared for them. They usually incite moments of panic, chaos and everything but rational thinking. Even in a state of crisis, while we’re seeking safety, very rarely do we know what we will do in just a moment’s notice, yet alone after the emergency has passed. Let’s review some quick tips on how to prepare bug-out bags for a special part of your family… your pets.

How many times after major hurricanes or tornadoes do you see images on the news of people stranded on top of their cars just waiting for a rescue squad? Whether it’s a natural disaster, the collapse of government or the end of the world, preparation is always key…

According to FEMA, the kit should be put together well before the emergency. After all, at a moment’s notice, you may have to evacuate your home and you won’t have the time to think about what you need to take with you – especially in a case where you’re running for your life.

Here are the top 10 must-haves to put in your cat or dog’s bug-out bag:

 

Must-Have No. 1: A Current Color Photograph. In the event you and your pet are split up, it’s important to have a way for you to describe it to people who might have seen it.

 

Must-Have No. 2: Food/Water. Pack a 72-hour supply for each pet. In a crisis, there’s no telling where the next meal may come from.

 

Must-Have No. 3: Sandwich Bags. Instead of poop-scoop baggies, normal sandwich bags work just as well. Not to mention, they can come in handy for other things.

 

Must-Have No. 4: Pet First-Aid Kit. It’s a given that anything can happen in an emergency. A typical first-aid kit would include invisible spray bandage, scissors, tweezers, medical/adhesive tape, several gauze pads, vet wrap, glow light sticks and alcohol wipes.

 

Must-Have No. 5: Special Medicines. If your pet has any allergies or special medicine that he takes, be sure to pack this. What’s worse than your dog or cat being stranded with you somewhere and suddenly having an allergy attack? Don’t forget to include the instructions, too.

 

Must-Have No. 6: One Small Blanket/Towel. Depending on the conditions that you face, your pet is going to need something to keep him warm.

 

Must-Have No. 7: Collar/Leash With ID. Again for identification reasons, it’s important to provide your pet with clear identification in the event that you two are separated from each other at some point.

 

Must-Have No. 8: A Pair of Women’s Stockings. These can be used as an ace elastic bandage, a filter to drain dirty water and a muzzle for a hurt animal.

 

Must-Have No. 9: Pet Carrier/Crate. If you’re able to evacuate your home via driving, a pet crate can come in handy. Again, remember to keep ID (both yours and your pet’s) on the crate as well.

 

Must-Have No. 10: Bowls With Lids. It’s good to have containers that your pet can eat out of… something that can also be sealed and packed up should you need to change locations.

 

Bonus Must-Haves: Some other extra essentials include a compass, a small flashlight, extra batteries, 12-hour emergency glow sticks, long-term hand warmers and a reflective dog/cat vest.

 

No one can ever be 100 percent prepared for a crisis. But 0 percent preparation will leave you susceptible to failure. This guide will help you get on the right track. In fact, preparing a bug-out bag for your cat or dog can be the difference between saving them or never seeing them again.

 

Remember, preparation is key. Your pet is worth it.

 

 

 

 

The post 10 Must-Haves for Your Pet’s Bug-Out Bag appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Top 3 Hacks for Packing Your Survival Gear

Click here to view the original post.

Run! Sometimes that’s the only answer to life-threatening situations. At this point, there’s no telling what type of state the country will be in a year from now… or even in months. Complete anarchy? War? Rebellion? A collapsed economy? One can never really tell… Not to mention, there’s always the threat of the next big natural disaster, which can leave every man and woman to fend for themselves with what packing gear they have on them.

Regardless of what danger pops up next, it’s important that you are ready and prepared for the unexpected. Let’s review three effective tips for packing your survival gear in a bug-out bag or your car trunk.

 

Picture Source: The Bug Out Bag Guide

Tip 1: Kill Several Birds With One Stone. For those who love to over-pack, it’s time to tone it down. Practicality is our first main focus when packing. Items with two or more purposes are what you want to add to your bug-out bag or car trunk in case of emergency. Here are a few easy examples of how you can apply this:

 

  • Clothes and Blankets: Experts suggest packing clothes and blankets for protection and warmth. Convertible, zip-off pants for adaptability and cargo pants with plenty of pockets for carrying items are two great examples. Other items can include working gloves, boots, thermal underwear and a waterproof jacket lined with fleece. In other words, pack strategically so that you will always find yourself at a comfortable temperature regardless of the weather conditions.

 

  • Tools and Gear: Duct tape is versatile, so it can be very handy for emergencies. It can be used to repair a tent, to create a sharp weapon or even used to create a splint for injured limbs. (mini duct tape rolls) A few other great items to consider are superglue (seals small cuts and repairs broken equipment), aluminum foil (water containment, mirror signaling and food preservation), trash bags (rain gear, containers, homemade insulation blanket), mini binoculars (great for scouting food if hunting, and locating friends and foes), and bandanas (eye patch, dusk mask, ear muffs, sling).

 

Tip 2: Every Inch Counts. It would be great if, in an emergency, you could just pack up your whole house and take it with you. But it’s not that easy. With limited space in your bug-out bag or car trunk, you have to be strategic and creative. Here are a few quick tips for compacting items.

 

  • Packing Tip 101: Roll your clothes instead of folding them. It takes up less space.

 

  • Fill Your Shoes: Pack socks and any small items inside your shoes.

 

  • Protection: Slip any breakables into your socks before packing them.

 

  • Reuse Bottles: Reuse old medicine bottles to store cotton swabs and sponges that can be used for cleaning wounds.

 

  • Case for Chords: Use an old sunglasses case to keep all of your electronic cords and charges in.

 

Tip 3: Easy Access. Another thing to pack in your bug-out bag is common sense. If packing an actual backpack, all of the less frequently used items should go at the bottom of the bag. Meanwhile, the heaviest items should go closest to your back, with the lightest items farthest from your back. From there, the most used items (maps, guides, cameras) should be placed at the top of your back.

The same concept applies to packing a car trunk. Keep things such as your tents, tent poles and sleeping bag deepest in your car trunk. Keep clothes and daily essentials more accessible, as you will need them more often.

Final Words: In order to survive the next big disaster, you must think ahead and prepare for all possibilities. Above all, remember that the most important focuses for packing are practicality, dual usage, space efficiency and accessibility.

 

The post Top 3 Hacks for Packing Your Survival Gear appeared first on American Preppers Network.

17 Things to Do or Check before Bugging Out!

Click here to view the original post.

17 Things to Do or Check before Bugging Out The Internet is filled with various lists of what to pack in your bug out bag, what kind of bug out bag to buy, how to pick a bug out location, how to choose a bug out vehicle, and what to pack in that vehicle. It … Continue reading 17 Things to Do or Check before Bugging Out!

The post 17 Things to Do or Check before Bugging Out! appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.

The City, EDC, and Preparedness!

Click here to view the original post.

The City, EDC, and Preparedness! Josh “7 P’s of survival” This show in player below! This week on the 7 P’s of Survival Radio Show we discuss various aspects concerning EDC, Preparedness and Self-reliance in a major city environment. Throughout the show I discuss a variety of major metropolitan areas, their laws regarding EDC, Preparedness … Continue reading The City, EDC, and Preparedness!

The post The City, EDC, and Preparedness! appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.

Covering More Ground when Bugging Out

Click here to view the original post.

by Ryan

So it is time to bug out. Something horrible has happened and you need to get away from civilization as quickly as possible. You have plenty of wilderness ahead of you, but you need to move quickly and put miles behind you. The terrain is rough, the rocks are slick, and you may even have people tracking you. How do you move as quickly as possible? Knowledge and preparation are the key to a swift bug out. If you know what to do you can double or even triple your rate of travel.

Bug Out Bags

The most important strategy for any bug out scenario is planning. One aspect of that is packing. Of course you read about bug out bags on every survival site you visit, but the weight of the items you pack is not emphasized nearly enough. When you are travelling long distances, a few pounds make a huge difference in your ability to keep pace. First, you need to buy the right pack. Try to pick something that has an interior frame and waist strap to take weight off of your shoulders. I know from personal experience that sore shoulders and a strained back make it very hard to keep hiking.

Next, focus on the weight of your items. Before you buy each item, shop around online and try to find a version that is lighter but just as functional.  In addition, constantly reevaluate your pack contents. As you become more experienced, you should be able to bring fewer items in your pack reducing its weight.  Also, as time passes technology produces lighter versions of the products in your pack. If enough progress is made, you may want to consider an updated version of a few of your items.

Planning for Your Whole Family

It is also very important that you plan for the group with which you will be travelling. If it will be you, your wife, and your two kids then make sure you do what you can to keep the hiking speed of each person as close as possible. Younger kids should not have anything to carry, while teenagers should have a decent load. Anybody that is injured or has a disability should have nothing to carry and you should do what you can to supply tools to speed their movement. Test out your plan in advance and fine tune it to keep everybody walking at the same swift pace.

A quick departure is important to any bug out situation. You should have a bug out plan with your family and practice it regularly. Keep your bug out bags in the same place and near the door. Modular bug out bags will allow you to make last minute adjustments to the contents of your bag. This can save you a few pounds while still keeping all items you expect to need on your voyage.

Fitness

It may go without saying, but your physical condition will greatly affect the pace at which you can hike. I am not saying that anybody needs to run marathons to spend all day in the gym. However, some level of fitness is a good idea. If you get in some hiking in periodically, it will also help your feet adjust to the abuse. Tough feet, strong legs, and decent endurance will be vital if you need to cover dozens of miles in a bug out scenario.

Routing

Planning a route is also an overlooked aspect of a proper bug out. For some reason people think that they can just walk out their front door and head in any given direction. This typically does not work out. You need to know your area well and have a specific route in mind. If you plan to leave civilization, figure out a direction that gives you mile after mile of wilderness. Then pick a travel route. It should be in an area of cover such as a wooded area or a dry creek bed that dips below the horizon.

You also need to plan a method of navigation. Landmarks are by far the easiest plan to get you where you are going. With proper landmarks, you really need nothing else to navigate. One example would be to find a creek and follow it to your destination. Another would be to follow specific rock formations or distinctive trees. You can also use the sun or a compass to maintain a specific cardinal direction.

General Rules

There are a few general rules for foot travel in the wilderness that will help you move quickly. First, always take the path of least resistance. Many times this will be a dry creek bed or a game trail. Make sure you maintain your desired direction, but these clear areas will allow you to walk without wading through brush or tall grass. Also, on a hillside the best path is about half way up the ridge. Often brush will be thick at the bottom and there will be loose rocks at the top. It also takes more energy to climb to the top of a ridge to travel versus staying on the side.

Pace

When you start walking, pace is very important. The military standard for long distance hiking is three mph for flat terrain, two mph for hilly terrain, and one mph for jagged terrain. Pick a pace based on your terrain and stick to it. If you over exert yourself, your pace will drastically slow after the first few hours. You are also much more likely to injure yourself if you tire out quickly. The most efficient way to travel is a brisk walk. Never run unless somebody is chasing you and is right on your tail.

Staying Safe

Avoiding injury is paramount to a solid bug out pace. If anybody in your group twists an ankle early in your journey, it will destroy the rate at which you travel. Walk slowly enough that you can pay attention to each and every step that you take. Be cautious of your footing and try to avoid loose or wet rocks. Wet leaves are also a hazard to avoid. A walking stick gives you a third point of contact and is a helpful tool if you can find one. Also be cautious not to step near any snakes as you scurry through the forest.  If you have to climb anything steep, slow down and use ropes if possible.

Periodic rest is just as important as a swift pace if you want to travel all day. Always rest based on the weakest link in your group. This will typically be young children, injured people, or those weighed down with heavy packs. If one person gets too winded, it can shut down the whole group for the day. Stop to sit in the shade, drink some water, and get a snack if needed. These little breaks will make a great difference in the distance you travel per day.

Protect your Feet

Another sometimes overlooked variable for travel speed is foot care. Make sure each person that is with you has a pair of boots that fit properly, provide traction, seal out moisture, and offer ankle support. These can be expensive, but they are worth the investment. Everybody should have wool socks if possible. Wool will keep your feet warm even when wet and will hold back moisture better than cotton. Another trick is to put on a pair of panty hose under your socks to reduce friction that could cause blisters.  When you make camp, have everybody dry out their boots and socks near the fire.

Even with proper footwear, it is likely that you will end up with blisters at some point. To treat them sterilize your knife in the fire and cut a slit in each blister. This will keep it open so the fluid will dry. If you have medical tape, tape over the blister until it is callused over. Few things will slow you down more than painful blisters. Also, make sure to keep your toenails trimmed so they do not cause any sores on your toes.

Making Camp

When you stop to make camp, keep it quick and basic. If you need to cover dozens of miles, you do not want to spend four hours on a fancy shelter. Do just what is needed to avoid hypothermia, protect from rain, insulate from the ground, and avoid predators. This will allow you to travel until just before dark and leave at first light. Sleep is important, so make sure you are protected enough to properly rest.

Food and Water

Often searching for food and water can slow people down when bugging out. You really should not take the time to set traps or do any conventional hunting or fishing. Instead be opportunistic and think like a gatherer. Look for nuts, berries, or edible plants as you travel so you can grab a handful and keep going. If you get to a body of water, look for a quick snack instead of going after a big fish. Try to find some crayfish or mussels or even seaweed or kelp. For purifying water, try to avoid taking the time to boil it. Bring a filter with you or bring some iodine tablets that will allow you to purify water while you hike.

Night Travel

As a general rule I never suggest traveling at night in a survival situation. However, if you need to make up some ground and you have lots of artificial lighting it can be an option. You definitely want to stick to a path without obstacles to trip you such as a game path. It is way too easy to step wrong on a rock or slip on loose leaves in the dark. It is also much easier to get lost, so make sure you have a map and compass. I suggest that you know how to navigate by the stars as a backup plan. Do not forget that predators are more active at night. Again, this would only be in a worst case scenario.

Snow Travel

Hiking in the snow and ice is a completely different challenge.  Safety and efficiency become much more important.  If you are walking on lots of ice, be very careful of your footing.  If you have access to crampons to strap to your shoes, that is the safest bet.  Never walk on frozen rivers or lakes unless you are sure of the thickness of the ice.

If you are walking in snow more than a few inches deep, you may be doing some ‘post holing’.  This is when you have to pull your leg out of a hole to take a step and then sink down into the snow as you put your foot down.  This is an efficiency killer and can slow your hike to as little as 10% of your normal pace.  Build some snow shoes to ensure you stay on top of the snow.

Once again I will have a chance to test out all these suggestions in a few weeks.  I am going to complete a long distance challenge in which I have to travel about 30 miles in dense woods with rugged ridges and cliffs. I will be doing all this with a light pack containing only a few items, so I should be travelling at a fast pace. As you can see, having a strategy and being prepared is the key to this pace. Hopefully I will be able to cover the distance quickly and get back to civilization.

Bug Out Bag Essentials – Most Important Items You Should Carry

Click here to view the original post.

When thinking about putting together a bug out bag, it’s easy to over pack. One item leads to another, and before you know it you’re carrying 80 pounds on your back, at a time when you need to be moving swiftly, and easily. Start with the basics: water, shelter, and food. Regardless of how far you have to walk, or what the kind of SHTF event has occurred, your bug out bag must contain items that address each of these three basics. You could carry more with you, but these are the bare minimum items that you SHOULD carry with you; the bug out bag essentials.

Water

When you plan your bug out bag you have to think about storing water and cleaning water. Adding a couple of 1 quart or 2 quart canteens on the outside of your bag is probably a good idea. Additionally, a Platypus 2 liter water bag inside your bag will mean that you have to think about water less often. But remember, water is heavy and it is something that your body needs more than it needs food. Planning the storage is important.

Rothco 3 Piece 1 Quart Canteen Kit With Cover & Aluminum Cup
Military Issue 2 Quart Water Canteen with New Issue Insulated Carrier and Shoulder Sling
Platypus Platy Bottle 2-Litre

As far as cleaning water there are several options available. It all depends on how large an item you want to carry and how fast you want to process the water. The LifeStraw is a popular product and is very small. But it only filters water as fast as you can suck it through the straw. The MSR Sweetwater Purifier System is a great product if you are bugging out with a group. It is a larger product to carry, but it has a built in pump that will purify water quickly. Which will allow you to fill up the water containers for your whole group in a short period of time. I think the best single person product is the Sawyer Mini Water Filter. Extremely versatile device that allows you to filter in many ways and even act as an inline filter. Each filter will process over 100,000 gallons of water and the actual product has a small form factor.

LifeStraw Personal Water Filter
Sawyer Products SP128 Mini Water Filtration System - Bug Out Bag Essentials
MSR SweetWater Microfilter

Shelter

As far as shelter goes, there really isn’t much you can carry on your back except a tent or a tarp. Tent seems like a better choice, at first. But tents are not really safe. You have to zip yourself inside one for it to be wind proof and (sometimes) waterproof. But then you lose the ability to have a fire beside you. You lose the ability to see what is outside and react to it. Have you ever seen Blair Witch Project? Were those kids “safe” inside their tents? I don’t think so! For me I would rather have a tarp that is really waterproof, a rope, and an axe to make my own shelter. A 10′ x 10′ tarp is a good size for a single person. Having a larger one opens up more options, but also takes up more room in your bag. Go ahead and spend a little extra on a tarp that is made of a rip-stop material. Get a camo or a green color tarp. A pink tarp is not a good idea for a bug out bag.

Next, get a good rope. I prefer a 550 style cord over a thicker rope. It is easier to work with and super strong. Titan recently came out with a cool product called SurviverCord. It is basically the same construction as 550 cord, but has 3 extra strands inside. One is a 25lbs monofiliment fishing line. The second is a copper strand that is electrically conductive and could also be used for making small game snares. The third is a jute waxed strand, that can be used while making fires. I honestly haven’t used it yet, but it may become a bug out bag essential soon.

So with a tarp and rope you can make a large variety of shelters. Prepperswill.com has a nice article with different designs. If you have a hatchet or nice felling axe, you can make larger and stronger shelters. This is a must if you plan to be in one place for a longer period of time. Strap the axe on the side of your bag so that it is easy to get to.

WINGONEER Waterproof Lightweight RipStop Tarp for Camping Hiking 10×10ft Compact Versatile Durable Backpacking Tarpaulin – Green
TITAN SurvivorCord, Bronze, 100 Feet – Patent-pending design integrates Fishing Line, Waxed Jute, and Copper Wire into our #1-Rated Military 550 Paracord. Includes 2 FREE Paracord Project eBooks

Food

Ideally you should have three days worth of food in your bag. There are hundreds of companies that will see you high calorie packaged food. But honestly, since I am a veteran, the military’s MREs are the way to go for me. You can save more room by taking apart your MRE pouches. Each pouch has cardboard and extra items that can be discarded, or used as a fire starter. Plus depending on where you are bugging out (woods, urban or coast) you can always supplement your daily food with foraged items, and meat that has been caught through fishing, hunting or snares. The MREs have a heating process built in. But having a small camping cookware mess kit allows for easier fireside cooking. It is probably not a Bug Out Bag Essentials, but certainly nice to have. These are light and do not take up too much room. If you opted for the 1 quart canteen described above, it has a nice aluminum canteen cup that can be used to cook most things.

MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) Box A, Genuine U.S. Military Surplus, Menus 1-12
Camping Cookware Mess Kit Backpacking Gear & Hiking Outdoors Bug Out Bag Cooking Equipment 10 Piece Cookset | Lightweight, Compact, & Durable Pot Pan Bowls – Free Folding Spork, Nylon Bag, & Ebook

Additional Bug Out Bag Essentials

You need to be able to start a fire in order to cook food or to warm your shelter. Find a nice ferro rod so you can always make fire.
Light My Fire Swedish FireSteel 2.0 Army 12,000 Strike Fire Starter with Emergency Whistle – Orange

Very rarely will you get your shelter complete before the sun goes down. Have a nice LED flashlight in your bag.
J5 Tactical V1-Pro Flashlight – The Original 300 Lumen Ultra Bright, LED 3 Mode Flashlight

A good survival knife should certainly be considered a bug out bag essentials! Check out the four that we recently reviewed. I like to keep my knife strapped to the bottom of my bug out bag, so that I can reach behind my back and have easy access to it while walking, and it will be beside my head at night when I use my bag as a pillow.

Even if you don’t know how to use a compass, please carry one. An inexperienced hiker can walk around in circles for weeks in the woods. But with a simple compass you can walk in a strait line in the direction that you are supposed to be going. The (product name) even has a small magnifying glass so that you could make fire during the daylight hours.
Suunto A-30L Compass

Anyone who has been in the Army was issued a Poncho Liner. If I have room in my Bug Out Bag I will always carry one of these. It is a light blanket during the summer and in the winter if you wrap yourself in another blanket or even a Mylar emergency blanket, it will keep you nice and warm.
Genuine US Military All Weather Poncho Liner Blanket - Bug Out Bag Essentials
 

If you found this article helpful/interesting, please Share it by clicking on the social media links. Thank you for helping us grow!

The post Bug Out Bag Essentials – Most Important Items You Should Carry appeared first on Surviving Prepper.

7 Reasons Bugging Out Could Get You Killed

Click here to view the original post.

When disaster strikes and you’re at home, you will always have two specific options: bug in at home and wait out the disaster, or load up your vehicle and bug out to a rendezvous point or bug out location. When people think of prepping, many of them think of bugging out on the road and […]

The post 7 Reasons Bugging Out Could Get You Killed appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Prepper Relocation Part V: The True Best Places to Relocate

Click here to view the original post.

Over the past two weeks, I have released a series on prepper relocation that completely changes the old conventional theories that drove prepper relocation strategies (See: http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/?s=prepper+relocation).  The key takeaway

Bug Out Bag, Get Home Bag, Everyday Carry Bag, what’s the difference?

Click here to view the original post.

Hello my friend and welcome back!  I had a new reader who confessed that she was confused, about all of the different types of bags and what each was needed for.  While I think…

The post Bug Out Bag, Get Home Bag, Everyday Carry Bag, what’s the difference? appeared first on American Preppers Online.

Prepper Relocation Part IV: The Fatal Error of Relocating to an Isolated Region

Click here to view the original post.

One of the single biggest mistakes preppers make is that they buy into the myth that relocating to a small region in the North West corner of the United States

UGH!!! Why is it so hard to find out what I need in a first aid and trauma kit?

Click here to view the original post.

Hello my friend and welcome back!  I recently had a reader send me and email asking “UGH!!!  Why is it so hard to find out what I need in a first aid and trauma…

The post UGH!!! Why is it so hard to find out what I need in a first aid and trauma kit? appeared first on American Preppers Online.

Prepper Relocation Part III: A Letter to the Prepper Community

Click here to view the original post.

Before I post Part IV, I want to pause and recap the huge amount of ground already covered in parts one and two of this series (See links below to

4 Things Wrong With Your BugOut / Survival Bag

Click here to view the original post.

I recently spent a few days out in the backcountry wilderness living out of my bag, miles away from the nearest town and long out of cell phone range.  It was myself and my dog hiking a few miles a day at over 10,000 feet in elevation, getting in touch with nature and evaluating some gear. When out in that sort of environment one figures out really quickly what is essential and what is fluff with respect to gear, what works and what doesn’t.  Since the bugout / survival bag is what we rely on to hold all of our essential equipment it stands to reason that this piece of kit should be near the top of the list with respect to how well it is taken care of.  Unfortunately that isn’t the case in many instances, so here are 4 things that might be wrong with your bugout / survival bag.

1- It hasn’t been unpacked in 6 months

Cooler temps are approaching so does the gear in your bag reflect that?  How long has it been since you completely emptied your bag, took and inventory and re-packed it?  Far too often gear is packed and then allowed to sit which means folks forget what is where and items often expire.

2- It doesn’t have hydration bladder pockets

Water is everything out in the wilderness and you must have a good way to not only carry it but access it while on the move.  Many good packs have built in hydration bladder pockets on the sides allowing for a 2 or 3 liter hydration bladder to be stuffed down in them.  Run the hose down over the shoulder and drink while on the move, hook up a mini sawyer in line water filter for drinking river/lake water.  The days of strapping canteens to a belt or the back of the pack are long gone for most, as there are much improved methods for carrying water.

3- The gear inside it has been chosen based on theory, not practical application.

Folks tend to buy gear based on other people’s opinions and there is nothing wrong with that, but has that gear been tested out in the field?  Has the tent actually been set up, fire starting material tested, stove been used to cook food?  Maybe there is a hatchet or other cool looking tool in there that is completely unnecessary, only way to find out is to get out there and test the gear.

4- It was purchased wholesale for $25 online.

It’s true, you get what you pay for.  To build a quality pack you need quality materials and folks who know what they are doing.  Time for design, R&D, manufacturing and advertising.  All of these things are built into the cost of the product (a good bag in this case) so that the company can remain profitable.  I know this seems like basic information but it stands to reason that a bag that runs $25 on the rack cannot possibly hold a candle to a pack that runs $350 or more.  The type of materials in the more expensive pack will be more durable, the zippers and fasteners will be better, the internal frame and shoulder straps will be much more comfortable and on it goes.  There are some good compromises out there which folks on a budget can look into but one must be careful when choosing a good bag.  Go cheap and by the time mile 5 arrives you’ll be sorry you did.