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: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:32PM (2 children)
Sustainable on the time scale of hundreds of millions of years. Come up with a better argument.
And you're making the mistake of thinking we are. Plus, I agree that the two uses of the term are not equivalent, but there is considerable overlap.
The thing that gets ignored here is that government ventures routinely have huge inputs of public funding. When that goes away (say because the opponents get into office with solid political support), then you have that funding dry up and the activity stopped. Hence, the emphasis on sustainable activity that isn't so dependent on capricious political sources for support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
Then mark the areas as public land forever and be done with it. If public funding disappears then the land is still there, but no rangers to oversee it or budget to fix parking lots, and big signs saying "Enter at your own risk!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @07:15PM