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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:00PM (3 children)
All you're doing is repeating your argument and twisting everything as somehow supporting your idea. What do you expect when you ignore other people's points and just re-iterate what you already said? Intellectual dishonesty, you can't face your personal axiom having failed.
Perhaps the actual problem here is that you are applying "profit" in the absolute most general sense: An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
If so, then you should broaden your vocabulary, because to most people profit is tied into economics.
Example: a state park. Everyone would be served perfectly well if the parks generated zero profit. Pay the rangers and their costs, but no one should be getting money for simply owning the parks. The park is still a net benefit to humanity, but it is more beneficial if the prices don't include paying some rich dude to sit on his ass and do nothing except keep a deed in his desk. Many countries with massively more socialized programs are doing quite well.
Don't want to be marked redundant? Stop trying to force your beliefs on to everyone else. Try listening to their arguments and growing beyond your own narrow view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
With regard to forcing beliefs on anyone else, I'm not the one who looks to pull the levers of government to effect my world view; hell, I'm not even the one moderating others.
With regard to your "zero profit" scheme, see the prior comment [soylentnews.org]; you'll notice it has already been discussed—maybe you should actually "try listening to their arguments and growing beyond your own narrow view".
How is "tied into economics" defeating any argument? You're just using other words to make it sound like you've said something novel.
To me, it looks like your own personal axioms are failing, and that you cannot handle it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:18PM
Nice projection bud, way to evade personal responsibility. I read your arguments and found them limited. Not wrong, but incomplete. All you're doing here is playing "I know you are but what am I?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday September 01 2017, @03:31PM
It's called moving the goalposts (but I'm sure you already knew that). Start out with the definition of profit that nobody can mistake for cashy monies, then when called on it say, "haha, I was talking general benefit all along!"
Horseshit. No you (they) weren't.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"