Will oil drilling in the ANWR harm wild animals?

20 April 2002, 08:20

Rob

The true answer is maybe. The Sierra Club has made an argument that although calving does not occur in the coastal plain every year, calf recruitment is much better when the calving occurs there. This is because when it occurs to the east, the caribou have to cross rivers ealy in the calves' lives resulting in a high mortality from drowning. They argue that the coastal plain is much narrower in ANWR than in the Prudhoe Bay area where caribou have thrived following oil development. The only thing is that it is pure speculation that the caribou would avoid the area of oil development and calve to the east if ANWR were developed. Oil development in the artic has become much less invasive since Prudhoe Bay. Drilling would occur in winter; ice roads would be used; very little land would be actually impacted. Personally, I do not belive caribou would avoid the area of exploration. I belive they would probably use it more regularly. This is because predators generally avoid human contact and caribou generally like to avoid predators. I sere this all the time driving the highways here in Alaska in the spring. There are tons of cow moose near the highways in spring time, I believe in part to avoid predators while calving.

So while oil development will have some impact (how could it not?), I do not believe it will be the end of the Porcupine Caribou herd as the "chicken little" environmental lobby would have you believe. The big question is what would this impact be, and is the large amount of oil which would no doubt be produced there outweigh that impact. In my opinion, and everyone is entitled to theirs, the impact on wildlife there will be minimal and justified by the return to the fed and Alaska state governments in royalties, and the reduced reliance on foreign oil such as the $10 million a day we buy from Iraq.

20 April 2002, 08:46

Paul H

I've been on a wellpad, where a rig was actively drilling, and there were ~100 caribou, bulls, cows and calves resting on the gravel pad, this was in mid August.

I'm not a biologist, so really can't make an honest assessment of how the development could effect the calving. I have traveled over most of the current oil fields, and they cover about a 20 mile stretch, and it is inundated with Caribou in the summer. The roads on occasion are closed due to the thousands of caribou traveling on them.

I think the environmentalists should be given a hand for forcing the oil companies to run what is likely the worlds cleanest oil field in Prudoe Bay. On the other hand, I think that the oil companies should be allowed to do more work based on there record of responsible development and operation.

There is no doubt that development will have an affect on wildlife. Also no doubt that there is always the potential of a spill. Then again, the area of proposed development in ANWR is relatively small, and the enviro claims of what will be effected are grossly exagerated. I also believe that the estimates of production are grossly understated by the enviros. It won't be enough to fuel the whole country, but it will be a signifigant source of oil, and for many years.

I wonder if the bunny huggers know that their fleece Patagonia clothing is made from hydrocarbons?

20 April 2002, 09:50

rockhead

Long Pig is correct about the geology and I agree the area should be tested.

If the question is: will Oil exploration have a detrimental affect on the caribou? We need only look as far as the Alaska pipeline. There was a lot of doom and gloom forecasted about the fate of the herd during its construction. After construction it was clear the herd not only survived but has thrived.

If there is a question wherther the exploration activities will create long lasting environmental problems? I doubt it.

Those of us who have worked exploring in the far North are fully aware of how heavily regulated all industrial activities are. Permits to do work are detailed time consuming affairs, which means that approval for an activity does not occur overnight and is usualy the subject of a great deal of thought and review by multiple federal, state and local agencies.

In any case our technological ability to explore and extract resources (oil or mineral etc)in an environmentally safe fashion (especially during the last decade) has increased dramatically when compared to the the early days of antique (oil) exploration and continues to improve daily.

I could take you to any number of drill sites where a few years later you would never know that I drilled at that spot (including sites in the arctic).

20 April 2002, 10:19

<MontanaMarine>

Back in the late 70s there was an oil boom in eastern Montana.

There was some disruption to the environment with new roads etc. But no real problems with the wildlife.

Of course the possibility of damage to the ecosystem is possible, and in very small ways, likely. But I do not think it would have any real disastrous effects.

You have to remember the bunny-huggers are a very small, but very well financed organization. I do not believe they are a mouthpiece for the majority of Americans, but they get media attention out of proportion to their numbers.

I believe folks like us have more true interest in conservation and concern for the preservation of wildlife and its habitat than the political activists like Redford and the Sierra Club.

20 April 2002, 10:44

rockhead

Redford is a good example he owns a ski hill in Park city Utah which I have been told was National Forest. I find it a bit ironic that he runs TV ads against the use by others of public land however temporary.

I guess now that Redford has his piece of public land, no one else should have a piece.

You Guys should read Lomborg's book "the Skeptical Environmentalist"

20 April 2002, 10:50

Bob in TX

I am sorry, but using the "true" answer as propagandized by the Sierra Club is like asking Handgun Control, Inc. what the real skinny is on gun "control". With the current exploration, drilling, production, and habitat restoration techniques the companies are using today, there is very little environmental impact at all.

FYI:
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

[This message has been edited by Bob in TX (edited 04-20-2002).]

20 April 2002, 13:36

<leo>

All the other oilfield work in AK hasn't harmed the wildlife one bit. All the work in the refuge will be done in the winter(not calving time) when NO road building will be necessary. The ice/snow cover and frozen ground will provide support for heavy equipement. However, an increased human population in the area may increase hunting pressure and community developement other than just better utilities and income.

20 April 2002, 13:48

ElCaballero

I know I'm going to sound like a hipacrite here with my 1 ton gas hog in the garage, but until human beings find a good alternative to oil no amount of drilling irregardless of enviromental impact or location on the map our problem will not be solved.

------------------
don't cuss farmers and ranchers with your mouth full

20 April 2002, 13:59

rockhead

quote:
Originally posted by ElCaballero:
I know I'm going to sound like a hipacrite here with my 1 ton gas hog in the garage, but until human beings find a good alternative to oil no amount of drilling irregardless of enviromental impact or location on the map our problem will not be solved.

You are correct but until that time comes our vehicles still have to operateso we will comntinue to use oil. People are working on alternatives as we speak. The point of our comments above is that we for the most part operate in an environmentally responsible manner in this country. Since we live here it is in our best interest to do so anyway.

I believe that it is much more environmentally responsible to explore and to develop resources in a country like ours that has very strong environmental laws, than it is to operate in countries (IE west Africa/the former Soviet Block of countries etc) where environmental regulation is poor to non-existent.

Ok I'll get off the soapbox now

[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-27-2002).]

20 April 2002, 14:49

Nitroman

Nope, won't harm them one bit. Who the hell cares anyway. That part of the earth is so far removed from anywhere else, it costs so much to get there, the only people who visit it are university biologists who spend someone elses money (yours) through grants.

It is another altar of the Gaia worshippers. I enjoyed working in Prudhoe in fall/winter of '85/'86. Best "job" I ever had.

20 April 2002, 15:12

ElCaballero

quote:
Originally posted by rockhead:
I believe that it is much more environmentally responsible to explore and to develop resources in a country like ours that has very strong environmental laws, than it is to operate in countries (IE west Africa/the former Soviet Block of countries etc) where environmental regulation is poor to non-existent.
Ok I'll get off the soapbox now
RH
[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-20-2002).]

I'll agree with that!

------------------
don't cuss farmers and ranchers with your mouth full

20 April 2002, 16:27

<dr280>

I am in the retail propane industry- the last delivery point in the oil food chain, and would surely like to see our country become less oil dependant on other nations. We rely so heavily on outside oil that they can run our business profits any day they choose. Also, with Saddam paying the familys of the suicide bombers- where is the money coming from? Oil purchases.... so we are feeding the circle- at the same time we are spending millions in military defense and lives to stop the violence. Drill some holes- see what is there and use our soil for any means needed to become more independant- the wildlife will not suffer if we do things right.

20 April 2002, 17:29

<cohoyo>

i've been up the haul road to deadhorse about 6 times in the last 12 years and I can't see any way the pipeline has hurt the wildlife. The tree huggers all swore that the pipeline was the end of the world and all living creatures were doomed a day after construction started, I don't think so. I've seen caribou all around the pipeline and artic foxes living under the buildings. the caribou would'nt move out of the area just because there were a bunch of buildings around, they didn't in prudhoe bay. If you wanted really low impact they could haul the stuff in on ice roads in the winter but why not just build a road, alaska needs more roads anyway.

21 April 2002, 04:05

LE270

quote:
Originally posted by Bob in TX:
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

I thank all of you for your responses. The consensus seems to be that there will be no significant impact on the wildlife from oil drilling in the ANWR, especially given the drilling and environmental conservatoin methods and measures in force today.

But I do wonder about Bob's claim here about new jobs coming about as a result of this. If a thousand or more people come to work and live in the ANWR in order to carry out and service the drilling operation, wouldn't the introduction of that many humans into this area have an adverse affect on the wildlife populations?

21 April 2002, 04:13

Bob in TX

That is the estimated number of jobs nationwide that will be created as a result of the exploration, and production. It has an economic impact far and above the 2000 acres.

21 April 2002, 05:30

bearhunt'r

quote:
Originally posted by LE270:

If a thousand or more people come to work and live in the ANWR in order to carry out and service the drilling operation, wouldn't the introduction of that many humans into this area have an adverse affect on the wildlife populations?

LE270,
As Bob stated, his figure was an estimate of the U.S. national job force. It would be suprising to find a hands on work force in the Refuge of more than 500 tops (during construction), and permant population of support staff would probably fall around the 200. This is just a guess; however, once the field came online, with todays technology the "hands on" time/effort equation becomes several times smaller than ever before. Your question really was what effect these people would have on the wildlife...particularly the caribou I'm guessing. Just an opinion, but based on all of the other producing fields on the North Slope and elsewhere, I would say that animal numbers would increase. Remember that these employees would not be able to hunt and it is highly unlawful to feed or harass any game there. The animals would find relief from predators; this has been the case everywhere else. Most knowledgable hunters and true conservationalists here in Alaska I talk to seem to agree with this view.
best,
bhtr

21 April 2002, 06:12

Bear in Fairbanks

They're only talking about the coastal plain, not the interior of ANWR. As has been posted above, there's been no disastorous impact on the caribou herd on the slope. I sure get tired of "foreigners" telling us how we should do things. We don't tell people in the left state how to conduct their business so they can keep their snotty noses out of ours. My opinion in a nut shell. Bear in Fairbanks

21 April 2002, 15:11

<Mike Brown>

LE270, you need to GO TO ALASKA to see how big it is. The people who shot this down are just politicians. The lie, cheat, steal, bribe, fu@#, extort their way to the top. If anyone thinks any of them give a rat`s ass about Alaska, they`re on crack. The scumbags are catering to the cry-fest of the city pukes that get their education from Walt Disney. If I could, I`d dig that bastard up and piss on him. Stupidest people I ever met are the ones that claim to be environmentalists, while they drive their cars to the capitol steps to demonstrate against drilling.
Uninformed morons. Hitler called them "Useful Idiots" They should not be allowed into Alaska unless they can prove they have a job to do there.
Last great state is being F`d up by the so called environ"MENTALISTS".
Damn!

22 April 2002, 06:32

MGC

This may be a little off the subject, But how much $$$ is in it for the average Alaskan Resident who recieves an Oil check from the State Gov't????

I do believe we should explore new oil sources, while being sensative to the enviornment. The ANWAR proposal sounds like a well thought thru plan. I have spent a lot of time in Alaska and I think that it would be relativley simple to have "low-impact" exploration.

24 April 2002, 04:29

Major Caliber

The DemocRATS want to send all our money to the Arabs, so they can use the money to buy Nukes!

24 April 2002, 05:17

Howard

"useful idiots" i will use that term.

------------------
Howard
Moses Lake WA
hhomes@homesley.com

27 April 2002, 10:20

Atkinson

I think the Sierra Club is without a doubt the most useless bunch of self serving idiots in the history of the country..

I have not seen a lot of damange in the oil fields of Texas, Wyoming and other places and with the directional drilling rigs of today even less can be expected.

Should the Alaska Game Dept. get a piece of the millions and they will, then it would be the best thing that ever happened to the Caribou and all other wildlife in that area...

It all comes down to the almighty dollar and even the wildlife can be better served with big bucks (money, that's a pun ) than BS.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

27 April 2002, 19:05

Nitroman

MGC,
The politirats here have been trying to institute taxes for the past 5 years. Tony "Kommie" Knowles flushed huge dollars down the toilet on his socialization programs and the bill collector has been sitting on the doorstep for the past few years. This sphincter-boy knew precisely what he was doing and has tried to paint the republicans as evil as they try to curb his excesses. You would think no taxing personal income was some sort of personal insult to the guy. Oh...yeah, he's a democrat I forgot.

Either way it wouldn't have too much if any I suppose.

It seems the socialist party has been against this state using it's own land ever since we became a state. Hickle had a lawsuit that was working it's way through the courts that would have addressed the Feral gubmint land grab. Kommie Knowles being Klintoons bend over boy dropped it. We will have to wait and see.

28 April 2002, 16:31

tsturm

Won't harm the Caribou one bit!!!

28 April 2002, 19:36

RMK

The problem is,we don't even really need the oil at this point and seeing how the shit has been sitting in the ground for a couple million years already,a few more decades won't hurt it a bit.
The current president came into office under fire for his stance on oil exploration in the arctic. Now he has the september 11 tragedy,compounded by all the other bullshit in the middle east and he's trying to use it as an exscuse to drill for oil in the arctic. We aren't hurting for oil right now and the amount of oil they'll get from the arctic at this point,isn't even worth the hassle. But bush is in bed with all the oil corporations and he answers to them.
There isn't even any legitimate reason for gas prices being as high as they are today,other then the oil companies are trying hose everybody to the point that they cry uncle and support drilling in the arctic refuge.
The situation with Iraq was created because Bush senior was to big of a pussy to take out sodamn insane during the gulf war,so we're still dealing with the prick today. The whole reason we were over there in the first place,was to protect the interests of the big oil companies,it didn't have jack shit to do with humanity.
The bottom line is we will drill in the refuge,it won't result in lower gas prices,the animals will go on living in the refuge with very few ill effects,you'll end up with boom towns full of oil patch trash,after initial construction you'll be left with a skeleton work crew to maintain the wells,what money it brings to alaska will be shipped out of alaska,the goverment will not hold the oil companies accountable for anything and the residents of alaska will in the long run end up flipping the bill for the whole abortion. The only people who come out on top are the oil companies and the companies that supply equipment to oil companies.

If you just set back for 40 or 50 years,the arctic refuge will be part of Northern California and you can drive right into it cheaply via a paved interstate and we'll still be paying out the nose for gas and by that time the goverment will have created another circumstance that has to be dealt with.

28 April 2002, 23:24

Coyote Slayer

AHHHH I see the last poaster has good Ideas as to what is good or not good for all us Poor and dumb Alaskans well i was in your state last year killing coyotes and gosh I got to see them speed goats well here is a great idea for you we do not have them here and just in case some 100 years from now one of my kids kids want to see them lets turn your part of the state in to a darn park heck it would not even be the size of one of are really small parks and we can tell you what is good for you and your life style you have no clue what it is to live here and never will we will see how sick you get of everybody in the world telling you what you can and can not do while there i saw a lot of mining going on and lets shut them down too just in case we loose a few speed goats maybe this dose not sound to funny now. you allready got your share out of the ground in one or more ways its are TURN the heck with the lower forty eight:Have a good sunday; Coyote Slayer

29 April 2002, 00:32

rockhead

RMK

There are a couple of problems with your arguments. First you are looking at "today" demands, when in fact we should be looking at future needs. Oil isn't that easy to find, if it was we would not be having this discussion. It will take years to discover and develop any new oil field in the arctic. It will take longer than in the lower 48 because there are more environmental laws and rules that need to be followed and the climate is harsher than in your home state.

If as you are implying that there is no demand for oil today, then why are the oil companies interested in drilling in the (expensive) Arctic? they are business who offer a product that there is a demand for.

Regarding Gasoline prices, well our prices are amoungst the cheapest in the world already (you may want to take a close look at how much of your local price is taxes). Look at Europe, they are paying considerably more per gallon than we are (~$4.00/gallon). I don't expect the Arctic Drilling to bring down gasoline prices, but I expect it to reduce our reliance to outside sources.

Regarding Boom towns.. You haven't been to the oil camps in Alaska Arctic have you? I suspect that you are equating the raunchy (antique) oil boom towns that your home state had in the past with a modern Arctic Drilling Project. Maybe some our Alaskan's can add to this.

29 April 2002, 06:03

Mike 1

quote:
Originally posted by RMK:
The problem is,we don't even really need the oil at this point and seeing how the shit has been sitting in the ground for a couple million years already,a few more decades won't hurt it a bit.
The current president came into office under fire for his stance on oil exploration in the arctic. Now he has the september 11 tragedy,compounded by all the other bullshit in the middle east and he's trying to use it as an exscuse to drill for oil in the arctic. We aren't hurting for oil right now and the amount of oil they'll get from the arctic at this point,isn't even worth the hassle. But bush is in bed with all the oil corporations and he answers to them.
There isn't even any legitimate reason for gas prices being as high as they are today,other then the oil companies are trying hose everybody to the point that they cry uncle and support drilling in the arctic refuge.
The situation with Iraq was created because Bush senior was to big of a pussy to take out sodamn insane during the gulf war,so we're still dealing with the prick today. The whole reason we were over there in the first place,was to protect the interests of the big oil companies,it didn't have jack shit to do with humanity.
The bottom line is we will drill in the refuge,it won't result in lower gas prices,the animals will go on living in the refuge with very few ill effects,you'll end up with boom towns full of oil patch trash,after initial construction you'll be left with a skeleton work crew to maintain the wells,what money it brings to alaska will be shipped out of alaska,the goverment will not hold the oil companies accountable for anything and the residents of alaska will in the long run end up flipping the bill for the whole abortion. The only people who come out on top are the oil companies and the companies that supply equipment to oil companies.
If you just set back for 40 or 50 years,the arctic refuge will be part of Northern California and you can drive right into it cheaply via a paved interstate and we'll still be paying out the nose for gas and by that time the goverment will have created another circumstance that has to be dealt with.

Who the hell let this Clinton luvr in here?

29 April 2002, 06:08

RMK

Just because an oil company is willing to go through great cost to get arctic oil,doesn't mean it's worth it. Corporations are constantly doing crazy shit and a company that has as much goverment involvement as the oil industry,knows it will be bailed out or helped by the goverment if it needs it. Since oil isn't found just any place,of course the oil companies are going to jump at the chance to drill in the arctic,it's a race between companies and they'll all be stepping on their dicks trying to get there.
As for boom towns,they are all the same. A prime example is Gillette, Wyoming. Starting in the late 1950's the first oil boom occured, it brought money with it,that promptly left after the boom was over. The late 60's through the 70's,saw another oil boom and the advent of coal mining,of the two,coal mining has been the only worth while industry. Then in the late 90's, Coal Bed Methane became the latest boom. All of the old local oil companies laughed and said you'll be lucky to get 5 years worth of jobs and increase in the economy. It's five years later and they were right. The vast majority of the workers they did get,are ex alaskan pipeline workers and all they do is follow the industry wherever it goes and take their income with them or ship it out of state to family. It's the same shit differant year. Everyone will piss away the money they made and will have to be bailed out.
As for everyone trying to tell alaskans what is right for them. Why not? When you look at the average alaskan,all they are is some reject from the east or west coast that fucked those places up and just can't help but do the same thing to alaska and since they've already picked up and moved once,it will be just easy to do again when alaska is a shit hole to live in.

29 April 2002, 07:32

Mike 1

Yep,
I rest my case.Your credibility just rose by a factor of 10 with that post.(NOT)
I love this forum,but it lacks a moron filter.
Mike

29 April 2002, 07:52

<333-OKH>

Will not drilling for oil in the ANWR harm civilized Americans? Shouldn't that be the question?

------------------
If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.

29 April 2002, 12:39

<Daryl Douthat>

rmk,

Agree with you completely. As one who has seen what Alaskans do to Alaska, I would prefer that they not be allowed to dig an outhouse hole without supervision from persons from somewhere else who have a glimmer of environmental concern. Want to see what can be done with Alaska? Visit greater Wasilla. While a boomtown won't be on the slope, the big projects will bring in more of the enlightened folks who think the place ought to be made as beautiful as other industrialized areas of the US. This state bends over completely for money and it doesn't even take very much.

29 April 2002, 13:27

RMK

Thanks for the input Mike1,it's always great to hear from some texas douche bag. After all,texas pretty much invented oil field trash and the washed out towns through out the state are prime examples of what happens when oil runs out.

29 April 2002, 18:23

Washington Hunter

Well just an observation here...RMK at least gave his opinion and showed some intelligence, while a couple of others on here are just full of insults and criticism just because a guy doesn't agree with them. I thought RMK's posts made a lot of sense, and whether everything he stated is right or wrong, I don't know. I don't know a lot about this particular issue, although I have heard and read a lot, but I have no first hand knowledge. With a couple of posters getting as defensive as they did, and one's from Alaska, and the other is in the oilfield industry in Texas, makes me tend to believe there was at least some truth to what RMK said.

29 April 2002, 20:11

Coyote Slayer

You are right we from Alaska are a bit bitter about moast of what gets shoved on us we have had woodcutting places in south east shut down becous of the heavy lobby from the green side no other work just deal with it we have had more land locked up than the size of your state and RMK"S put togeather are hunt regs are the size of a small phone book god for bid anybody kills a wolf here just so the people from the lower 48 can see one if they ever get here.

he was right about one thing moast of the workers are from the lower 48 and they leave and take there money some place else and when they do come here to live they want it the same as what they let behind roads taxes and garde rails you name they want it moast of that comes from the south of the state it is the reast of us suffer carter went fishing up there and made it a wild area he has not been back as far as i know.

Was there not a city in your state a few years ago that made the #1 place to live well it is preaty far down the list now could it be because every one moved there and wanted to change things as to RMK you schould not inclued people that you do not know with your same ilk or people may think you are some type of redneck cowboy ass you can quote green peace all you want but that will not change a thing the native people that live there will have it done sooner or later they held up stevens becous they are going to wait till the oil will pay them more than the people in alpine got this a waiting game as far as they see it and the longer the waite the more they will get payed not to include the state of the art schools and everything that goes with it just look at the north slope there schools are the moast hi tec of any where and how did they get it from the pipe line and taxes on the use of the land so if I came off as someone that thinks RMK has no clue I am sorry but no matter what he thinks he does not live here or vote here so his point is what all talk well that is preaty cheep you have your congress men vote not to dril or lock up more land you do not have to live with it WE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do have a great day:Coyote Slayer

30 April 2002, 03:05

<Daryl Douthat>

Washington hunter,

Don't expect much independent thought on these forums. For the most part they read like a PR effort for the oil industry. These are the same guys who are convinced that spills will never happen and that all environmental degradation can be mitigated. If history had been determined by the opinions on this forum, I doubt that we would have any public lands in the US and our air and water would be even worse than it is now. We would all be hunting on game farms. I once asked if anyone from the lower 48 reading a similar thread lived along a river that was clean. Not one positive reply. But the environmental "wackos" that they detest are the ones who are trying to clean up the messes that have been left behind and to prevent future ones. The coal industry that trashed my home state ripped and ran. Many of the streams are dead and will be for the indefinite future. The rivers contain fish but you sure don't want to eat many of them.

Coyote slayer represents a typically thoughtful Alaskan view. His opinions mirror those of our current legislature.

If you want to see how the oil industry has taken over Alaska and some of the consequences, read Strohmeyer's "Extreme Conditons, Big Oil and the Transformation of Alaska".

30 April 2002, 08:01

Coyote Slayer

Just one last Question Daryl do you get your PFD check every year or with all the bad things that Big Oil has done do you send it back and say you cannot execpt it due the Rape of the land If you keep it, is that not the same as being two faced( like give me the money ) but no you can not do a thing any place but make sure my check in in the bank by OCT 10 now please come up with an answer that is truthfull not the bull that my family needs it or well every body else gets it so I schould too if you take it then you have no honer you say one thing but do the other

Sorry i do not aggree with what is going on or we would have subsistance and the feds would not have taken over are land and hunting and fishing rights I guess if you are a vegin you still can still find things to eat when it is all said and done. My anster to the gentleman from WA. was an honest one they have lost the number# 1 spot I just wanted to see how he felt about all the new people in his state and while i was working in Wyo. all moast everyone that i talked to were preaty mad about all the people that were moving there from LA and buying land and poasting it. I would like ask RMK why my tax dollars are being used for ADC work ,and paying farmes for extra crops or to not grow anything at all that is all moast as bad as the oil it is money wasted you have a bad year then take it on the chin and if you loose every thing to bad so the goverment bails out way more farmers and ranchers each year than they do here> Just makes you go HMMMMMMM!!! have a good one: Coyote Slayer

30 April 2002, 09:10

Rob

Coyote, I believe that the best thing that could be done is that we drill for oil and use the money to go buy up all the vacant land in the east and then not let anyone use it for anything. Think that is what Don Young had in mind with CARA.

As a practical matter I am against creating more access in Alaska. Build a road and what happens, the crap gets shot out of everything in the area. Access is already a little too easy for me in most of the state as you can leave Anchorage, fly to Aniak, fly out to what is usually a remote hilltop or lake on Day 1, shoot your two bull caribou in the next day or two and head home on Day 4. Just a little too easy. I would like Alaska to keep its wilderness character so there will be places where you can go and hunt without having to draw a permit. But when it comes to ANWR, the potential benefit to the economy which allows most of us to live here and enjoy the wilderness outwieghs the slight environmental costs. Of all the areas in Alaska that can be developed, the coastal plain is one of the least important ecologically IMHO.