SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 01 2017, @05:03PM (6 children)
And? If they're not part of a national park or a proper monument, the government has no business saying what can and can't be done with them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (5 children)
Exactly, thus why they should remain as parks / monuments. Sure you're not posting AC? Same logic seems to be going around....
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 01 2017, @06:22PM (4 children)
See above in the summary. Monuments do not encompass millions of acres. They were declared monuments, despite clearly not being monuments, because the President can unilaterally declare anything a monument whereas he cannot do this with a park. It was a clear abuse of power that should have been laughed out of court in by the time the ink dried on the order.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @07:10PM (3 children)
Ugh, pedantry when it suits you. Your logic is always on point provided everyone subscribes to your limited view of the world.
I consider these locations to be monuments to North American history and our love for natural beauty. A monument does not have to be in structure form.
Gee, I wonder what might happen to these beautiful pieces of nature. Hmmmm.... I can't wait until every part of the US looks like a major city. Industrial wasteland with teeny tiny pockets of green. All hail resource extraction! All hail profits!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 01 2017, @10:11PM (2 children)
Millions of acres locked up is in no way pedantic.
This is true. There has to be something for it to be a monument to however. Being a monument to "we like trees" is not remotely sufficient and any arguments to the contrary are not just bullshit but knowingly bullshit.
If you're concerned about it, buy some nature and do nothing with it. Your mouth, either put some money where it is or shut it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:32PM (1 child)
You're a fool, but hey the sky is also blue! Obviously there is a split between those who think "fuck nature" and "save nature". If your stance is purely ideological then you're a bigger fool than I thought, relying on market forces to prevent corporations from destroying more of the environment. If you don't think or care that the environment will be damaged then you're beyond hope.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 02 2017, @01:39AM
You haven't a clue, coward-boy. I spend more time out in nature in a month than you will in your entire life, most likely. A hell of a lot of those red-staters that are against the government owning huge swaths of public land and refusing to let anyone use it for anything... they're the ones who enjoy being out in it every week. They want it freed up because they want to own it and spend time on it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.