{"id":1246,"date":"2024-04-23T18:25:34","date_gmt":"2024-04-23T18:25:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gatewayrocks.com\/?p=1246"},"modified":"2024-09-12T15:21:50","modified_gmt":"2024-09-12T15:21:50","slug":"environmentalish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gatewayrocks.com\/?p=1246","title":{"rendered":"Environmentalish"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the complex dance of environmental advocacy, intentions matter as much as the arguments themselves. Sometimes, what appears as a noble pursuit of ecological preservation can cloak more self-serving or misinformed aims. A recent squabble involving the Gateway Conservation Alliance’s opposition to a new gravel pit near Montana’s Gallatin River highlights this perfectly, bringing a touch of unintended comedy to the forefront.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnother reason we shouldn\u2019t build a mine next to an impaired river. Seems counterintuitive and just plain stupid.\u201d<\/p>Gateway Conservation Alliance Facebook Post<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Read the Bozeman Daily Chronicle article the Alliance linked to here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It turns out, in the article they linked to, the notorious nitrates contributing to these blooms can potentially originate from agricultural runoff, a detail that urban-centric critics like those in distant San Francisco might not fully appreciate. Those with a closer connection to the land know all too well the challenges and sources of such pollution. Ironically, the gravel pit operation they aimed to challenge promises to replace the nitrate-heavy agricultural land with an activity that does not contribute to nitrate pollution, effectively addressing the very issue the Alliance ostensibly fights against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n