Sandstorm Gold Royalties Provides Updates on Producing and Key Development Assetslive casino westmoreland mall 。

Was Friday's double dose of good news a turning point for the stock market?

Mexican gangs exploit terrorist networks to orchestrate assassination attempts on Donald Trump

By Anastasia Teterevleva and Maxim Rodionov MOSCOW (Reuters) -President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia would keep testing its new Oreshnik hypersonic missile in combat and had a stock ready for use. Putin was speaking a day after Russia fired the new intermediate-range weapon into Ukraine for the first time, a step he said was prompted by Ukraine's use of U.S. ballistic missiles and British cruise missiles to hit Russia. The Kremlin leader described the missile's first use as a successful test, and said more would follow. "We will continue these tests, including in combat conditions, depending on the situation and the nature of the security threats that are created for Russia," he said in televised comments to defence officials and missile developers. "Moreover, we have a stock of such products, a stock of such systems ready for use." A U.S. official, however, said the weapon Russia used was an experimental one. The official said Russia has a limited number of them and that this is not a capability that Russia is able to regularly deploy on the battlefield. Intermediate missiles have a range of 3,000-5,500 km (1,860-3,415 miles), which would enable them to strike anywhere in Europe or the western United States from Russia. Security experts said the novel feature of the Oreshnik missile was that it carried multiple warheads capable of simultaneously striking different targets - something usually associated with longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. Ukraine said the missile reached a top speed of more than 13,000 kph (8,000 mph) and took about 15 minutes to reach its target from its launch. The firing of the missile was part of a sharp rise in tensions this week as both Ukraine and Russia have struck each other's territory with increasingly potent weapons. Moscow says that by giving the green light for Ukraine to fire Western missiles deep inside Russia, the U.S. and its allies are entering into direct conflict with Russia. On Tuesday, Putin approved policy changes that lowered the threshold for Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with conventional weapons. SEVERE ESCALATION Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Russia's use of the new missile amounted to "a clear and severe escalation" in the war and called for strong worldwide condemnation. He said Ukraine was working on developing new types of air defence to counter "new risks". The Kremlin said the firing of the Oreshnik was a warning to the West against taking further "reckless" actions and decisions in support of Ukraine. The Oreshnik was fired with conventional, not nuclear warheads. Putin said it was not a strategic nuclear weapon but its striking power and accuracy meant that its impact would be comparable, "especially when used in a massive group and in combination with other high-precision long-range systems". He said the missile was incapable of being shot down by an enemy. "I will add that there is no countermeasure to such a missile, no means of intercepting it, in the world today. And I will emphasize once again that we will continue testing this newest system. It is necessary to establish serial production," he said. (Reporting by Anastasia Teterevleva in Moscow and Maxim Rodionov and Darya Korsunskaya in London; additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington; writing by Mark Trevelyan, Editing by Angus MacSwan and Diane Craft)

New $17bn mega-project will rival Suez Canal by building 'uninterrupted highway' between Europe and AsiaJudge shuts down Tesla’s attempt to reinstate Elon Musk’s giant CEO pay package

EUREKA — John Cooper, 80 years old and with a new set of knees, still rises before the sun, dons waders, sets up decoys and tries to call in ducks. “I love waterfowl hunting,” he whispered, nestled into the cattails along the edge of a pond this fall. “The immersive experience of the hunt, learning about these ecosystems, being involved in waterfowl conservation — I love everything about it.” “And it’s good eating if you cook it right,” he added. For Cooper, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement officer and former head of the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, duck hunting is more than a pastime. It’s a passion tied to the wildlife and land he’s spent over 50 years trying to conserve. These days, he worries about disappearing wetlands and hopes the next generation will stop the losses. Activists across the nation share his concern. The Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Massachusetts, released a report Wednesday saying that a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, has stripped federal protections from 30 million acres of wetlands in the Upper Midwest. The ruling redefined federal wetlands protections, leaving those without direct surface connections to larger water bodies unregulated. The researchers said the decision will accelerate wetland losses. According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the more than 300,000 square miles of wetlands that existed on the U.S. mainland several hundred years ago had already been reduced to almost half that amount by 2019. The report says the next federal farm bill, likely to be considered by the new Congress next year, presents an opportunity to strengthen wetland protections by increasing funding for conservation programs that pay farmers to conserve and restore wetlands on their land. Stacy Woods, a research director with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the threat to wetlands is particularly severe in South Dakota, where agriculture occupies more than 85% of the land and the state has no wetlands protections beyond enforcing federal laws. The report says South Dakota is home to about 1.9 million acres of wetlands, which is about a 30% decline from the 2.7 million acres estimated to have existed two centuries ago. Cooper said he sees evidence of those losses every time he goes hunting. CONSERVATIONIST TO THE CORE Born and raised on an orange and avocado farm in rural California, Cooper earned a criminology degree from the University of California, joined the Navy and served two tours in the Vietnam War. He joined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement Division, where he oversaw habitat and wildlife protection across the Dakotas and Nebraska for 22 years. “There was just an unbelievable amount of habitat when I first moved here,” he said. In 1995, then-Gov. Bill Janklow appointed Cooper as secretary of South Dakota’s Department of Game, Fish and Parks, a role Cooper held until 2007. Cooper also served as Gov. Mike Rounds’ senior policy adviser on Missouri River issues and as a senior policy adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center on climate change and wildlife management. From 2013 to 2016, he chaired the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission. All the while, Cooper said, wetlands were vanishing. “The days of when I first moved here are gone,” he said. “Those live in the heads of old guys like me now.” THE INFLUENCE OF FARM POLICY The 1980s farm crisis was a key turning point for wetlands and wildlife habitat, Cooper said. Federal policies in the 1970s had encouraged farmers to plant more crops, especially corn, to meet booming global demand. Many farmers borrowed heavily to buy land, equipment and supplies to expand production. The surge in planting caused overproduction, driving crop prices down. When interest rates on loans soared in the 1980s, many farmers were deep in debt, unable to repay their loans. Bankruptcies spread across rural America, forcing many farm families off the land. In response, the federal government introduced policies to help struggling farmers. They included subsidies, programs to buy surplus crops, 10-year contracts paying landowners to leave marginal land as grass, and requirements for ethanol to be mixed into gasoline. The goal was to stabilize farm incomes and protect family farms, Cooper said. “But did it stop the corporate consolidation trend?” Cooper asked. The evidence says no. Subsidies based on production rewarded larger farms, encouraging growth and out-competing smaller operations. Increasingly expensive farm equipment, seeds and technology favored big operations with better access to credit. And rising land values made expansion easier for large farms while pricing out smaller ones. Large-scale farms operating on 2,000 acres or more now control over two-thirds of the cropland in South Dakota, according to the 2022 U.S. Census of Agriculture. Thirty years ago, large farms controlled less than half of the state’s cropland, according to a report from South Dakota State University Extension. The report says the number of farming operations in the state dropped nearly 30% from 26,808 in 1997 to 19,302 in 2022. The sharpest declines have occurred among medium-sized farms. “You used to only have these small, diversified family farms — a couple of families to a section — where having good habitat was just part of it,” Cooper recalls. “Now, what you see is an industrialized ocean of corn and soybeans.” Cooper said federally subsidized crop programs have encouraged the draining of wetlands and the tilling of grasslands, incentivizing producers to cultivate more acres. “To be clear, I have nothing against the actual farmers,” Cooper said. “They’re responding to a system the international seed and chemical companies, biofuels, tractor companies, and other fat cats have cooked up, where production is king, and conservation doesn’t put food on a farmer’s table.” IMPACTS FROM DRAIN TILE Some farmers drain wetlands using underground perforated pipes, called drain tile, which lower the water table and make land suitable for farming. “And that water goes somewhere,” Cooper said. Instead of being retained in a wetland, excess water from drain-tiled fields flows into ditches, creeks and rivers. The amount of water flowing down the James River in eastern South Dakota has risen 300% since the late 1990s, according to a report by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The report primarily blames increased precipitation. But the report also says that “only a handful of counties in eastern South Dakota have a drain tile permit program, meaning there is not a temporal or spatial record of tile drainage in the state and thus difficult to determine the extent to which tiling may have increased flow.” Cooper is skeptical that increased rainfall is the lone culprit. “Nothing on the land occurs in isolation,” Cooper said. “And things start to accumulate.” Other researchers have attributed widespread higher streamflows not only to higher precipitation, but also urban development that sends rainfall running across concrete and asphalt into streams, expanded tile drainage systems under farmland, and the conversion of grassland to cropland, which causes higher runoff. “Taxpayers are subsidizing rich operations to drain wetlands and plant another acre of corn,” Cooper said. “There has got to be a better way to pay these landowners for the ecological benefits their land provides.” The Union of Concerned Scientists not only supports increased funding for conservation programs to protect wetlands, but also tying crop insurance subsidies to environmentally friendly farming practices. By adopting methods such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, farmers can minimize harmful runoff while maintaining productive operations, the union’s report says. FARM BUREAU PERSPECTIVE South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal is a contrary voice, arguing that subsidies aren’t driving increased corn production. He supported the Sackett v. EPA decision. He attributes increased production to advances in genetics, equipment and the changing climate, all of which have allowed farmers to grow corn and other crops in places that previously weren’t considered good areas for those crops. He also said that farmers don’t drain “true wetlands” as defined by federal regulations, since doing so would forfeit federal subsidies. Cooper uses the broader scientific definition of wetlands, which includes ecosystems where water saturates the soil seasonally, supporting aquatic plants and wildlife. “We’ve never agreed with John on that,” VanderWal said. VanderWal is also skeptical that draining wetlands worsens flooding, suggesting drained land can absorb water and saying there are ways to control the outflow. Cooper counters that downstream flooding impacts communities more than farmland — which is insured by federally subsidized programs. There have been signs of worsening floods in South Dakota, including in June when a record crest on the Big Sioux River overwhelmed flood-control measures and devastated the community of McCook Lake. “We need to let these watersheds serve their purpose, as they have for thousands of years,” Cooper said. “When someone thinks their ‘private property rights’ trump Mother Nature, it sets us all up for trouble. Mother Nature always bats last.” VanderWal said modern agriculture prioritizes conservation more than ever, with farmers adopting practices like reduced tillage or no-till and leaving crop residues on the land to protect the soil. “This is becoming more important all the time,” VanderWal said. “People are learning.” WHY WETLANDS MATTER Wetlands absorb and store excess water during heavy rains and snowmelt. That slows water flow into rivers, reducing the risk of downstream flooding, explained Stacy Woods, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Another way wetlands help mitigate flooding is by slowing climate change, which has already brought more extreme weather to South Dakota. South Dakota has seen two billion-dollar floods in the last two decades. Just this year, the June storms that brought flooding to McCook Lake dumped 10 to 20 inches of rain on some southeast South Dakota communities. During those storms, Mitchell and Sioux Falls recorded their wettest two-day periods since the National Weather Service began record-keeping. “Healthy wetlands can capture and store carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere where it would otherwise trap heat and contribute to a warming planet,” Woods said. “But when wetlands are damaged or destroyed, they can release this stored carbon as methane, carbon dioxide, or other heat-trapping gasses that accelerate climate change.” Saturated wetland soils slow plant decomposition, and the dense plant material becomes carbon-rich peat. Wetlands cover about 3% of the planet’s land yet store approximately 30% of all land-based carbon. That’s according to documentation from the 50th anniversary of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an international treaty the U.S. joined is 1986 focused on the conservation of wetlands worldwide. The loss of wetlands is particularly concerning for waterfowl populations, especially in the Prairie Pothole Region, often referred to as North America’s “duck factory.” This region, which spans much of northeastern South Dakota, is one of the most important breeding grounds for ducks. The small, shallow, seasonal wetlands are critical nesting habitats teaming with the bugs ducklings consume. Yet, these same wetlands are among the most vulnerable to drainage for agricultural purposes. And pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers can kill wetland bugs. That’s why hunters including Cooper are concerned about wetlands, but he wants to spread the concern wider. “You don’t have to be a duck hunter to care about this,” Cooper said. “When we lose these places, we lose a lot more than hunting opportunities, no doubt about it.” COOPER’S MESSAGE Cooper is not optimistic about wetland conservation, citing the dominance of production agriculture and the imbalance between federal programs incentivizing production over conservation. “Until the feds make conservation as competitive as production, I don’t see it changing,” Cooper said. “We need incentives that reward preserving wetlands and grasslands or enforce their protection.” He urges policymakers to recognize wetlands and grasslands as vital climate solutions. He advocates more federal support to encourage less tilling of the soil, more cover crops left on farmland year-round, and incentivizing wetland preservation over the conversion of wet areas to cropland. Cooper and his wife, Vera, are committed conservationists, supporting groups including Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, which work to conserve wildlife habitats. For him, hunting ties directly to conservation, providing state funding for habitat conservation and improvement through license fees and taxes. “Hunting isn’t just about pursuing wild game. It’s about protecting the ecosystems that sustain them,” Cooper said. At 80, Cooper acknowledges the toll of his efforts but remains steadfast. “Vera says it’s time to kick my feet up, but she knows I can’t,” he said. “Because the wild places are worth fighting for.” South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com . Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and X.

Mum-of-22 Sue Radford reveals festive trick for when kids are poorly – as bug sweeps through their 10-bedroom mansion

Seibert misses an extra point late as the Commanders lose their 3rd in a row, 34-26 to the CowboysMovies Don't miss out on the headlines from Movies. Followed categories will be added to My News. Margot Robbie thought she might be arrested after the actress slapped Leonardo DiCaprio while auditioning for The Wolf of Wall Street. The impromptu moment came while the two were supposed to be reading a kissing scene. However, Robbie decided another move would work better for the script. The last line from DiCaprio was, “Come over here and kiss me.” Margot Robbie stars in The Wolf of Wall Street. “And in my head I was like, ‘I could totally kiss Leonardo DiCaprio. That would be awesome,’” she recalled thinking during an episode of the Talking Pictures podcast . “I can’t wait to tell all of my friends this.” “And then I was like... nah. And just walloped him in the face,” Robbie said. “And it was dead silence for what felt like an eternity but was probably three seconds,” recounted the actress, who was 22 years old at the time. “And then they just burst out laughing. Leo and Marty were laughing so hard, they said, ‘That was great.’” The actress starred opposite Leonardo DiCaprio in the film. Afterwards, Robbie worried she would get “arrested” and ruin her career over the off-script move. “I was like, ‘You’re going to get arrested, I’m pretty sure that’s assault, battery,’” she thought at the time. “Not only will you never work again, but actually you will go to jail for this, you idiot. And also, why did you have to do it so hard? You could have done it lighter.” Robbie’s role as Naomi Lapaglia in Wolf of Wall Street , alongside DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey, thrust the young star straight into the spotlight. The film was based on the real-life story of Jordan Belfort, a former stockbroker who committed financial crimes, including stock market manipulation and fraud. Robbie at The Wolf Of Wall Street" premiere in New York in 2013. Picture: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images Robbie said she was worried she would go to jail for slapping DiCaprio at the audition. Picture: Michael TRAN / AFP The Barbie actress wasn’t prepared for the new-found level of fame the role brought her. “Something was happening in those early stages, and it was all pretty awful, and I remember saying to my mum, ‘I don’t think I want to do this,’” she told Vanity Fair in 2022. “And she just looked at me, completely straight-faced, and was like, ‘Darling, I think it’s too late not to.’ That’s when I realised the only way was forward.” These days, Robbie is much more comfortable navigating her stardom. “I know how to go through airports, and now I know who’s trying to f**k me over in what ways,” Robbie explained to the outlet. After The Wolf of Wall Street , the actress landed roles in huge films including I, Tonya, Suicide Squad and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood . Most recently, the 34-year-old starred in the box office hit Barbie alongside Ryan Gosling. The film, which was the biggest opener of 2023, grossed $US1.44 billion, according to Deadline. This article originally appeared in Page Six and was reproduced with permission More Coverage Star breaks down on camera: ‘Horrific’ Caroline Blair – Page Six Elton shocks with bombshell health update Bronte Coy Originally published as Margot Robbie worried Leonardo DiCaprio slap would get her arrested during Wolf of Wall Street audition More related stories Movies Craig’s shock 007 admission: ‘Shouldn’t say’ The former James Bond star has made a startling confession about an extra role he played in one of the franchise films. Read more Movies Aussie legend’s hit song turned into film Hugo Weaving and Daniel Henshall have revealed their heartfelt interactions with legendary musician Paul Kelly after starring in the film adaptation of his hit song. Read more