Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday September 01 2017, @10:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the monumental-decisions dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said on Thursday he has sent recommendations from his review of more than two dozen national monuments to President Donald Trump, indicating that some could be scaled back to allow for more hunting and fishing and economic development.

The recommendations follow a 120-day study of 27 national monuments across the country, created by presidents since 1996, that Trump ordered in April as part of his broader effort to increase development on federal lands.

The review has cheered energy, mining, ranching and timber advocates but has drawn widespread criticism and threats of lawsuits from conservation groups and the outdoor recreation industry.

There were fears that Zinke would recommend the outright elimination of some of the monuments on the list, but on Thursday, speaking to the Associated Press in Billings, Montana, he said he will not recommend eliminating any.

Zinke said in a statement that the recommendations would "provide a much needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation." He did not specify which monuments he plans to recommend be scaled back.

The Associated Press reported that Zinke said he would recommend changing the boundaries for a "handful" of sites.

If you're taking millions of acres off the table for one site, you fail at knowing the definition of a monument.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-monuments-idUSKCN1B41YA

Also at RT, CNN, The Washington Post and The Hill.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:52PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:52PM (#562522)

    You're saying this: Those open spaces are profitable for society.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:37PM (#562549)

    I liked this response [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:54PM (#562559)

      It doesn't match this situation.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:50PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:50PM (#562556)

    WE GET IT, you enjoy MISUSING the word profitable, and it appears you are doing it to push your own POV that everything is and should be about profit.

    No one else here agrees with your definition of the word. You are not going to convince people other wise. So at this point its just trolling, so STOP IT.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:58PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:58PM (#562561)

      Would you profit if I stopped? How many bitcoins would you send me in exchange for stopping?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:49PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:49PM (#562584)

        Well I bothered to log in and counteract what I thought was an incorrect flamebait mod. I will now probably join people in modding you troll.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (#562599)

          Please, explain.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:26PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:26PM (#562611)

            I corrected what I thought to be a faulty moderation. Upon further reflection I see that you are simply restating your primary idea of profit == everything. Enough people have posted legitimate responses and demonstrated that "profit" does not cover everything, and that you are using the general and specific definitions of profit to suit your purposes.

            I will now mod such submissions as trolls since they ignore valid arguments and simply restate the assumption that profit == everything. When using the general and specific definitions at will you can wrap everything into the general and then "logically" tie it to the specific business profit definition.

            To further explain, it is like you are copy/pasting the same argument over and over, no variation and no valid critiques of counter arguments. This is trollish behavior, spamming a message to try and force engagement. A few people have already commented that you are intentionally doing this, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and explaining the situation.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:29PM (#562704)

              Their arguments haven't been ignored; they've been rebutted (and, indeed, invalidated).