Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brian Renville" data-source="post: 120286" data-attributes="member: 256"><p>That's kind of the contention here, the SHSND had one job and it certainly appears that they didn't do it. The reason they could let it slip by is when they give their report to the PSC there is no one at the PSC that(probably) would or could claim they know more about the sort of thing that the SHSND does than the folks sending the approval to them. I'm not talking about water rights or Natives or anything like that. That shouldn't need to be repeated but it's pretty obvious certain people have that first impression of "What the hell are those damn Indians whining about now?" stuck in their heads. They wont admit it because that makes them sound like an asshole but it's there. I'll admit when I first saw protesting on the news I felt "what is this stupid shit goin' on?" I have no problem admitting it. I will say though without the protest the people who know about this stuff wouldn't have even looked at it. Anyway, the main issue here is about integrity of the contributors and the one who appears to be the skunk here is the SHSND who's "report" said they found nothing. Anyone who has been hunting with a local old timer knows you can't drive in the country for ten minutes in any direction without finding something of historical significance. Now significant to who? If there is a homestead of a notable Dakotan it's important to someone. Lets say there was notable ranch or an forgotten about rodeo grounds where state or national champions rode, the cowboy hall of fame would want to make note of that, it's required to make an effort to put that in the study. If a battle took place it needs to be noted in the study. If a lutheran church once stood 80+ years ago with a possible cemetery, that needs to be noted. Distance to homesteads with possible german iron crosses needs to be noted, so if accidently stumbled upon they can be handed over to the proper historical entity or family.   Now 95+% of these things would not be cause for rejection or even alteration of the path of a pipeline or any other construction the law just says it needs to be noted in case a local museum or university or cowboy hall of fame whatever it may be can archive the history to prevent loss. Something will alway be destroyed that is important to someone whatever it's family related, religious, or just holds a fond memory but the law is there to make a good attempt to not miss those things. We know there are things near enough to the planned path that they should have been noted in the study, so why the did the SHSND say there is nothing there? Any of us that grew up in a small town or went hunting with some old timers know that is impossible ove any distance in this state. Go figure I guess. We do know that half of the SHSND's budget is contributed by energy companies so take that for what it's worth. I'm not sure if you read the above note I posted by Dr. Isern but he's someone who does know more than me about this, I'm just some schlub who went to college for history at one time and got hinted to look at the study. Like I said before I have no problem with pipelines they are the best and safest option to get done what we need done. The contention here though is if someone like the SHSND is giving false but favorable findings on things that is a big big problem. The law should have been followed and it appears it wasn't, don't like the law work to get it changed but while it is there it should be followed and those in charge should be taken to task about doing so. I'm hearing a lot of "it was approved by the government that means everything has to be on the up and up." That almost sounds like....ISH......Democrats</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA