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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:41PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 01 2017, @06:41PM (#562654) Journal
    You don't need a perfectly free market in order for the pricing mechanism to work.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @07:26PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @07:26PM (#562680)

    Free market when you want it to solve efficiency problems or get rid of regulation, don't need a free market for pricing mechanisms to work.

    God DAMN how has your existence not ruptured the space time continuum?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @08:54PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 01 2017, @08:54PM (#562722) Journal

      Free market when you want it to solve efficiency problems or get rid of regulation, don't need a free market for pricing mechanisms to work.

      You got it.

      God DAMN how has your existence not ruptured the space time continuum?

      Because I understand nuance apparently. Tools don't have to work absolutely perfectly in order to be usable tools.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:41PM (#562756)

        Hahahah, ok whatever khallow, remain a walking paradox and enjoy all the arguments you can until people realize its just easier to ignore you. Only reason I respond is so that some random person isn't suckered into your semi-reasonable yet contradictory statements.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:34AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:34AM (#562858) Journal
          There is no paradox. You're just not getting it. Let's review the earlier complaint:

          Free market when you want it to solve efficiency problems or get rid of regulation, don't need a free market for pricing mechanisms to work.

          The second sentence says nothing about the first and vice versa, hence they can't contradict each other. A freer market tends to be more efficient and less ridden with regulation, neither which really has anything to do with the existence of pricing mechanisms (the efficiency of the mechanism, sure, but not whether it exists). But you can have a market that's pretty far from the free market ideal and still have pricing mechanisms. You just need a few things like price discovery and voluntary trade. And that's pretty much it.