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: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Friday September 01 2017, @11:34AM (4 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday September 01 2017, @06:24PM (2 children)
Having lived in both the UK and the US, I can only applaud the National Trust, Historic Scotland, and other UK organizations that care for historic sites. They do an absolutely tremendous job, and they are basically self-supporting.
In the US, you have private companies running some national parks. They abide by the same rules that the government would, but with a difference: the government earns money, rather than spending it, because the private companies are vastly more efficient. Some are better than others, of course, but the same applies to the government-run facilities.
I'm not saying that the US should privatize everything, but there is a good argument for privatizing quite a lot. Have guidelines that must be met, do away with unnecessary regulations and see what happens.
That said, some of the federal practices are pretty stupid. I've been in national forests that are used for logging, where there was natural forest in a 10 meter band near the road - and beyond that you had perfect rows of identical trees all the same age [ggpht.com]. That's bullshit. If a tree farm wants to grow trees, they can do it on their own lands. That's not what national forests are for. The same for grazing: If a rancher wants to graze cattle, he can buy his own damned pasture.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @06:35PM
Stand by for blatant Republican lie, and it is not even fron the Donald!
FALSE! Not true! Erroneous. Right-wing ideological claptrap! Pre-alt-wrong.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 01 2017, @06:43PM
- for.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 01 2017, @06:42PM
... but it doesn't operate parks. It buys land then lets it be wilderness.
I expect they do that in other countries too.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]