Your statement about working in wyoming,pretty much sums up why your up in arms about arctic oil,your one of the oil patch trash that follows the industry around. I won't blame you for standing up for your job,just don't try and feed everyone the shit sandwich about how great drilling for oil in the arctic is.

[This message has been edited by Coyote Slayer (edited 04-30-2002).]

Your level of writing doesn't do your arguments much good but you do reflect the changing demographics of the state. How wonderful that you chose to move from Wyoming to Alaska. We all make mistakes in our writing, but have you considered having an adult write for you?

rmk,

See how wonderful the pemanent fund dividend program is? As the economy winds down, we get guys like this. And they start reproducing at puberty.

This discussion has degenerated to impolite name calling which is clearly off topic. I suggest we terminate the discussion on this thread.

"My question is to those from Alaska, or others who have personal knowledge of this area and this situation: What is your opinion on this? Would oil drilling in this area really harm the wild animal populations there in any significant way?"

The answer is: No.

Appreciate your comments. A long reply. I still have a trapline, trap a little (more in past years), and know a bit about trapping and what kind of living can be made from it today. I have great admiration for the people and the cultures that used to live subsistence lives and the few who continue to do it. Even the family with what is probably the best trapline in the state (400 marten per year a decade ago) is doing other things and they were the best trappers and woodsmen that I have ever known. I know quite a few people who have tried to do it full time recently and none who are succeeding. Fur prices are way down, gas and machine prices are high. (When I last made good money trapping, muskrats brought $2.50 from Sears and gas was 25 cents per gallon.) After you subtract the dividend checks to critter slayer and family, the net trapping income together with a dollar will get you a cup of coffee in some places. In order to break even now you have to kill the country. It ain't much of a living anymore and guys who claim to be free, independent and living off the land today are in fact living mostly off the dole here, much as they probably were in their previous place of residence. The rest of us are going to be paying an income tax soon to help support them. I don't mind if people want to explore their fantasies (I have enjoyed exploring mine), but I don't see why the rest of us should pay for them to do it. Living off the land today is a very expensive fantasy in southcentral and the interior, especially for the resource. Finally, attempting to live off the land does not justify being ignorant and proud of it. The old timers that I have known were thoughtful and knowledgeable.

As an aside, in Alaska, trapping plays essentially no role in predator control and never has. For wolves, poison an entire region, shoot packs from helicopters, yes. Trapping wolves and coyotes, simply not effective. Can't get 'em all that way. As we now know, bears play a bigger role anyway in caribou and moose calf predation. The business about kill a wolf, save xxx caribou is pure nonsense. Maybe if you neutered that wolf and it was a breeder. What it has done has been to give a green light to the guys who like to run down wolves and coyotes on fast snogos. Think that does much for the reputation of hunters and trappers?

The mudslinging started when rmk expressed a contrary opinion and got dumped on for it. Like I said, most respondents on this forum parrot the industry view (as per the VECO column in the ADN) and other views are rarely expressed. There are apparently few participants who aren't owned by the oil industry or can imagine what Alaska was like before big oil? Furthermore, why do hunters on this forum have so little awareness of environmental degradation? As one who had little contact with things like organized hunting, one of the biggest disappointments since participating in these forums is to find out how regressive modern hunters appear to be in this regard. My father from another era with an 8th grade education had more foresight than I usually see displayed here. It amazes me since the areas that most of us are from were once pretty nice places and they must be aware of how much we have already lost. The wildlife paradise that the lower 48 once was is changing rapidly as population expands and resource extraction extends still further. (They are now planning to take the top several hundred feet off mountains in W Virginia and Kentucky to get the coal and dump the tailings in nearby valleys. Any of you guys grow up in the coal regions as I did? ) I presume most folks are old enough to have seen the changes in the lower 48 and also in Alaska. Do we want the future of the land to be linear extrapolation of the past? I sure hope not.

I do make a good living at killing wolves and coyotes bouth here and the lower forty eight I do not care what you think, I am not trash and I am not on the dole was any of this a need to know no it was not.

You did a good job of dancing around what I asked you>>>DO YOU TAKE THE MONEY<< simple Yes or NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!no name calling just a Question simple!!!!!!!!!!

And as a Alaskan I listen to what you have to say not a problem why becouse you live HERE!!!!!!! and Vote here!!!!!!! all the other people from out side mean nothing to me why becous they do not vote or live here I have lived here for 22 years and yes i have seen a decline in just about everything.

as it being my falt that we ALL will have a tax I think not it is the state that is pissed that we would not fork over the PFD so they could spend all of it in just a few years and gain nothing.

As to the forty mile wolf control it went down in flames and so did the sister program in Canada you need to read the Wolves of Denali great book but takes the wind out of the sails for animal right groups all i said to RMK was here is another lower forty eighter trying to tell us what to do with are state then all of a sudden I am trash or on the dole or work for a oil company bull

For all i know you could be getting a native corp. check along with you PFD or doing what ever it is you do that is none of my business and i would never ask but because you think you know me I need to answer your questions to hell with the bouth of you so don't think you know me or what i do or how I live my life just answer the Question.

As to the Bou no there will not be an impact on the heard. The unit 13 heard was hit hard, the reason was a tear 1 tag that made it so you had to kill cows and young bulls for three years and every body got to take two bou and moast took cows the season runs from AUG. till the middle of March. now it is just bulls a little to late plus the large amount of bouth Wolves and Griz. in that area has caused more problems. Reason for the cow tags was they were running out of food or so said tobby the area Bio> Have a good day: Coyote Slayer

1) while caribou may not be impacted, there are other species of animals and plants up there

2) there is an aesthetic issue involved as well - oil drilling and refining is ugly. the oil country here in Texas is an ugly stretch of landscape, not because it was that way before, but because of acres of torn up land from oil prospecting. i know that the proposed exploration of the ANWR will be as environmentally sound as the oil industry can make it, but it still won't be as aesthetically pleasing as an unspoiled ANWR

which brings us to point 3 . . .

3) the ANWR is a NATIONAL wildlife refuge, so us "lower 48ers" have every right to have a say in what happens to it or any other parcel of OUR land (Nat'l Forests, Parks, BLM lands) etc, be that land in Alaska, Florida, or Hawaii.
4) don't dismiss the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, etc, as a small "fringe" group with a powerful lobby - to do so is like the hypothetical ostritch sticking his head in the sand. i daresay the membership in the environmental groups exceeds the membership in the NRA, for example. why hunters seem to be opposed to the environmental movement is beyond me. environmentalists are not necessarily animal-rights people, and environmental and hunter groups COULD and SHOULD work together to find common ground in order to protect the environment that supports both of their interests.

5) drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary for the U.S. - it may provide jobs to Alaskans, true, but it is not necessary for the US economy, and won't provide enough oil to make us any less dependent on foreign oil - the ONLY way that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY and DEVELOP ALTERNATE ENERGY RESOURCES - but guess what, the oil industry, the automotive industry, etc, don't want those things, and have convinced americans that things like the 100 mpg car that will do 0-60 mph in 6 sec is a myth! its not, its been made (in europe) but because the american auto buyers control the market, this car was never put into production ... oh, and it was built in 1991.

but on the original point . . . i don't think that there will be MUCH actual damage to wildlife populations should the ANWR be explored or exploited for oil. But the aesthetic damage will be there for years (possibly 100s or 1000s of years). and since the ANWR is a NATIONAL refuge, paid for mostly by us lower 48ers (there are lots more of us!), then we have every right to have a say in how OUR LAND is used.

btw, i voted for GW - i voted gun ownership this time around - but as for the issues, well, i don't much like either political party, as neither represents all my beliefs - each covers some i like, many i don't, and neither catches all ... fact is, i'm too much of an independent thinker to fall hook line and sinker for one party's line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44300-2002Mar5?language=printer

So what do we do guys? Let the US economy go down the tubes cause we don't/can't develop any more energy sources? Everyone talks up "alternate energy" sources like it's just a matter of switching but unfortunately powerful, evil and thoroughly corrupt forces stand in the way. That's the party line anyway.

What are these alternate sources? Does anyone really believe that in this day and age of the Internet that such a thing could be covered up? And if these sources were really viable, someone somewhere WOULD be developing them. If there's money in it, it would come to fruition.

I see that fuel cell R+D is well under way. Apparently it's not ready for civilian deployment just yet. Still it's being worked on and I'm sure that when it's economically feasible, we'll see it.

If a 6 sec 0-60 100 mpg car really existed, it would sell. I'd buy it. The American public may have elected Bill Clinton 2X, but I still believe that corporate marketing really doesn't drive the market. The American public wants a free lunch (and too many believe it's possible) and if they see a cheaper, better way to drive, they'll go for it. The idea that Americans buy SUV's simply because Ford and GM tell them too is utter nonsense. Americans buy SUV's because they want them. And as long as they can afford to drive them, they will. I love leftist charges such as this. It's like American women were stampeded into buying S+W LadySmiths because S+W marketed them. They, the women, can't think for themselves. How insulting. (Yet another good reason to shun the DNC and their socialist ways.)

Awhile back some yahoo wrote a letter to the editors of Scientific American. He sounded off about the benefits of a "transporter" ala' Star Trek over our present transportation system and its' dependence on oil. Great. Wonderful. Let's do it. Yeah right, even if it were feasible, does anyone think that such a device would operate on a D battery? Loony lefty. Thought patterns totally divorced from reality IMHO.

To me anyway, it appears that there is a wonderful opportunity here to develop alternate energy sources. All you guys who are kicking the present administration and evil corporate America, instead of lashing out with your venomous cynicism and jaded and horribly pessimistic outlook, why don't you work on developing these new energy sources if you're so damn smart and all knowing?

Over and over again, here, there and everywhere, I see the same old crap regurgitated about how evil oil companies are and how the Bush admin is in their back pocket and how a better way exists, but the American public is just too damn stupid to see it and we're incredibly smart 'cause we've just told you how evil the oil companies are and how the Bush Admin is corrupt and on and on.

Again, if you're so damn smart, WHY AREN'T YOU PUTTING YOUR INCREDI-BRAINS TO WORK TO FIX THE VERY PROBLEMS THE REST OF US ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE, LET ALONE FIX?

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

Somebody please get a map. It looks like nearly half of Alaska is tied up in parks , reserves and wildlife refuges . ANWR's coastline from the Canadian border to just east of Pruhdoe Bay accounts for around a third of Alaska's total coastline along the Beaufort Sea/Arctic Ocean, about 700 miles worth if you straightened out all the nooks and crannies.

The proposed "Keyhole" site is 2000 acres. ANWR is the size of Kansas.

The Porcupine herds' population, like ALL CARIBOU HERDS is cyclic. It booms and crashes. It crashed a few years ago and has been a little slow on the rebound. The same arguments were put up in the 70's to stop the pipeline and they failed as did all the dire predictions and the caribou there now are as plentiful as ever. They bed in the shade of the pipeline.

[This message has been edited by sdgunslinger (edited 05-02-2002).]

i KNOW that wildlife will not be severely impacted by drilling ANWR

i also KNOW that Alaska has lots of wilderness

but i also KNOW that ANWR is a federally owned parcel of land, and i for one would just as soon not see it developed. Alaska does have lots of wilderness - lets keep as much wilderness there (and elsewhere) as possible - we don't have enough!

as for the assertion that 100 mpg cars have not been made, well - do some research

- since 1985, 10 companies have produce prototypes that would get 67-138 mpg

- volvo's LCP prototype - supercharged diesel engine avg 81 mpg, can run on diesel, diesel-gasoline mix, and vegetable oil (in a pinch)

- GM Ultralite concept - 85 mpg using off-the-shelf technology, 0-60 in 7.8 sec

- addition, all the major manufacturers have prototypes of fuel-cell/combustion hybrids built right now, including a ford F350 class truck (check popular science)

and yes, i'm sure Americans would buy such cars. but there is more to consider than just the market for these cars. will the market share be significant enough to justify (for Detroit) the costs of revamping their assembly lines and essentially building new factories? realize that the technology involved in actually building the engine in your car (the engine itself, not the computer regulators, fuel injectors, etc) is about 1960 or 70 tech, with essentially a bunch of high tech "patches" to improve efficiency.

why should Detroit change? there is no particular reason - Americans are content to purchase cars that get 20 mpg. as long as we are eager to go out and buy new cars just like the last one we had, then Detroit will feel no pressure to change what they are doing.

as for other alternate energy sources, they are being developed. is it just central texas, or has there been an exponential growth of wind farms across the country lately? and as for energy efficiency - anyone else noticed such things as compact flourescent bulbs that screw into a traditional light socket? these are about 20x as efficient as an incandescent bulb.

we are making strides in energy efficiency - we just need to take more and longer strides.

the ANWR is public land - i just don't like to see special interests getting rich off of public land. of course, the public is diverse and varied, and not everyone will be pleased with every decision - but that's democracy for you.

Relax, breathe deeply. It's only a hunt forum. There are many ongoing energy research projects as you must know and some of us do or have done exactly the kind of work you suggest. Our energy future won't be the present. (Even British Petroleum, Sir John Hunt, and VECO apparently now recognize the role of hydrocarbon consumption in global warming.) Nuclear is likely to play a larger role and safer reactors exist. Fusion may work one of these days. Are they better technologies? Will they solve our energy problems? Who knows at this point. As the guy said, it's too soon to know the future. We may not have many options in 50 or 100 years. Grab a few of the standard scientific journals in the field, e.g., Fusion Research, to get an idea of what people are up to. Much as my machines and I love 'em, fossil fuels ain't gonna do it for the long haul and modest conservation measures easily outstrip the forecasts for ANWR. In the meantime, take a look at the way energy policy is being determined. Think it is a good process to have the foxes design the henhouse? Let's use what we have wisely and leave some for future generations. And maybe even leave a few unimpacted places for people to hunt and recreate two hundred years hence. Teddy Roosevelt, that old hunter/conservationist, would approve.

Will caribou be impacted if ANWR is developed? The people who depend on them think so.(But who cares what they think.) The people who don't, don't.

rmk,

Thanks.

As far as these high mileage vehicles. What's keeping them out of production? I'd love to have a vehicle that delivers 100 mpg or 80 mpg or whatever. As long as it's practical anyway. (Practical meaning comfortable and safe to drive.) I gotta think that any company or individual who could deliver such a vehicle would literally be in the driver's seat and would cash in big time. So, the question is, why aren't they?

There is no doubt that the next 50 years will bring us revolutionary changes in energy sources and I say, wonderful. Bring it on. But until then, I think we need more oil sources unless we're willing to drastically lower our standard of living. Personally, I don't think that our shallow and utterly gutless American society is capable or ready for a um... "major downturn." Blood will run in the streets gutter to gutter.

I frequent the Turbo Diesel Register Web site and it was there that I learned of a group, a very, very clever group, who go about pasting bumper stickers on the bumpers of SUV's stating such things "I am helping to destroy the environment with my SUV." Wow! What brainpower! I sent these brainiacs an email (which went unanswered) challenging these Einsteins to come up with a fix rather than funnel their energy into attacking private property.

It's easier to belly ache and ridicule with the ol' superior jaded eye than actually get out there and fix the problem, isn't it?

Just think of the money to be made if a viable means of cheap or even moderately cheap (and hopefully, clean) energy production could be developed. That fact alone will bring it about.

The fact remains that sniping at the Bush admin and the oil companies really won't fix the problem. If you think that you can do it better, THEN DO IT! If anyone feels that these companies are so stupid, so short sighted, then they must also feel that these same companies are ripe for the picking. Undercut 'em! That's capitalism for you.

Bring on the fusion! Bring on the fuel cells!

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

it is simply much more complicated than that.

- first you have to consider how much it would cost the companies to convert their factories to make the new cars

- second, if americans are content to buy 20 mpg (avg) cars, and the companies know that if they turn out a 20 mpg car that will get bought, why pony up the cash to make the new, more efficient car? the auto mfgs simply have no incentive to redo their factories

i know folks who work at GM just down the road here in Arlington. GM is putting the exact same engine in their 2002 chevy cavalier (?) as they put in their 1990 model. do you think in that time that they could have made a better engine? sure. but did the potential profits to be made from better engines justify the cost of rebuilding their assembly lines, molds, etc? apparently not, since they are still using the same ones.

its not some 'sinister' plot - its just capitalism.

Think of it, a 1/2 ton pickup suddenly goes from 15 to 25 mpg with no loss of performance. You think that wouldn't sell? You think that any auto manufacturer wouldn't give their right arm for such a vehicle? They'd own the market! Any retooling costs would be recovered within months, if that long. Fleet operators alone would buy 'em all up.

What incentive do auto manufacturers have? Innovate before someone else does. THAT'S Capitalism!

This "sinister plot" stuff is Hollywood pap.

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

1) while caribou may not be impacted, there are other species of animals and plants up there

Yes, and there is research on the effects of development on those species.

2) there is an aesthetic issue involved as well - oil drilling and refining is ugly. the oil country here in Texas is an ugly stretch of landscape, not because it was that way before, but because of acres of torn up land from oil prospecting. i know that the proposed exploration of the ANWR will be as environmentally sound as the oil industry can make it, but it still won't be as aesthetically pleasing as an unspoiled ANWR

Alaskan oil fields are likely the cleanest in the world, and do not look like Texas or third world developments.

3) the ANWR is a NATIONAL wildlife refuge, so us "lower 48ers" have every right to have a say in what happens to it or any other parcel of OUR land (Nat'l Forests, Parks, BLM lands) etc, be that land in Alaska, Florida, or Hawaii.

True, and no argument there.

4) don't dismiss the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, etc, as a small "fringe" group with a powerful lobby - to do so is like the hypothetical ostritch sticking his head in the sand. i daresay the membership in the environmental groups exceeds the membership in the NRA, for example. why hunters seem to be opposed to the environmental movement is beyond me. environmentalists are not necessarily animal-rights people, and environmental and hunter groups COULD and SHOULD work together to find common ground in order to protect the environment that supports both of their interests.

Alaskans are all to aware how powerful, effective, and invasive these groups are.

5) drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary for the U.S. - it may provide jobs to Alaskans, true, but it is not necessary for the US economy, and won't provide enough oil to make us any less dependent on foreign oil - the ONLY way that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY and DEVELOP ALTERNATE ENERGY RESOURCES - but guess what, the oil industry, the automotive industry, etc, don't want those things, and have convinced americans that things like the 100 mpg car that will do 0-60 mph in 6 sec is a myth! its not, its been made (in europe) but because the american auto buyers control the market, this car was never put into production ... oh, and it was built in 1991.

Alaskans are not the only ones that will benefit from ANWR! A large portion of the design, fabrication, transportation field work and associated activities will be done by non Alaskans. Asside from that, the Federal Goverment will get direct financial input from oil development from the oil companies. Everyone in the US will benefit financially.

but on the original point . . . i don't think that there will be MUCH actual damage to wildlife populations should the ANWR be explored or exploited for oil. But the aesthetic damage will be there for years (possibly 100s or 1000s of years).

The only aesthetic damage will be from the production modules. Since the area is currently not accessed by the public, there are no roads, and flights are exspensive, the impact will be negligable. Asside from current interest due to ANWR development, I doubt more then a dozen or two people a year visit the area where the oil field will be errected.

and since the ANWR is a NATIONAL refuge, paid for mostly by us lower 48ers (there are lots more of us!), then we have every right to have a say in how OUR LAND is used.

Again, no arguement, but fully understand the impact on you before you say it won't benefit you. The estimates of how much oil is in the field as touted by the environmentalists is on the low side.

One last thing, the boomtown mentality of the oil companies is pretty well gone. They know the profits are in extended operation. They are also very concerned with the publics perception of them, and know they are under a microscope in Northern Alaska.

how many car mfgs do you think there are, anyway? ford & mazada are the same company . . . gm & toyota, etc. the big companies don't want to change the way they do business, because change costs money. a small company can't market the prototypes, etc. ever hear of an innovative (for its day) car company that went by the name of Tucker? fuel injected engines . . . in the 50s! pushed out by Detroit.

how bout airfares? do you really think it costs $400 per passenger to fly from Dallas to LA? that's what American charges. at one time, we had a little budget airline here at DFW by the name of Sunjet . . . fares were $225 round trip. Guess what, American dropped their fares, pushed Sunjet out of the market, then hiked their fares back up.

my point is, don't buy what big business or hollywood or politicians have to say.

Paul: i never made the claim that oil development of the ANWR won't benefit me (although i doubt the benefit will be significant) economically. what i'm getting at is that Oil Drilling in ANWR is not a fix - its barely even a patch - to our dependency on foreign oil.

further, the evidence at hand suggests that the environmentalists are a lot closer to estimating the amount of ECONOMICALLY recoverable oil in ANWR than the oil industry.

finally, if we take the mentality that "there's a lot of wilderness up there, turning a few acres of it into oil production won't hurt anything" I just have one question - where do you draw the line? because, if you value wilderness as i do (even the "reclaimed" wilderness areas that we have in east Texas National Forests) then you must recognize that a line must be drawn somewhere. once upon a time, the lower 48 was a big wilderness, and over the last 50 years, we've seen a steady decline in actual wilderness (as opposed to designated wilderness). well, i want to know that when i'm 50 and can afford the alaskan sheep hunt or caribou hunt or whatever, that i will have wilderness left.

whether or not 5 or 500 people visit the ANWR is immaterial . . . its a wilderness National Wildlife Refuge. my vote is to keep it that way. since we live in a democracy, you may, of course, urge your senators and representatives to vote differently. personally, i hope wilderness values win.

as a hunter, and active proponent of wise use of wildlife resources (i'm a member of Texas Park's & Wildlife's Wildlife Diversity Advisory Committee), i'm by no means a tree-hugger or PETA freak or ecoterrorist - but i see alternative energy sources which are becoming more and more available and don't see that drilling in ANWR is a "wise use" of our resources.

[This message has been edited by tcencore260 (edited 05-03-2002).]

No, the article was not what you were saying exactly.

"i KNOW that wildlife will not be severely impacted by drilling ANWR"
True

"i also KNOW that Alaska has lots of wilderness"
Also true

"but i also KNOW that ANWR is a federally owned parcel of land, and i for one would just as soon not see it developed. Alaska does have
lots of wilderness - lets keep as much wilderness there (and elsewhere) as possible - we don't have enough!"

Wrong again. ANWR is mostly Federal land, but there are Alaska Natives that own part of the land, too. Most of the Natives there want oil exploration,
but it was not so in the '80's.

"the ANWR is public land - i just don't like to see special interests getting rich off of public land. of course, the public is diverse and
varied, and not everyone will be pleased with every decision - but that's democracy for you."
The public is part of any "special interest."

I am, you are, Union members are part of a special interest, NRA members are "special interest," and so any member of an
organization or group, etc.

I don't think you are aware that provisions were made when ANWR was created to allow for oil exploration in the specific area we are talking about. It
still needs Congress approval. Eventually, if Congress does not approve the measure, I imagine they will have a hard time arguing with the Native
populations that own part of that land.

Well...this is getting too long, and I don't plan to talk about this subject any longer. If I offended anybody here, please accept my apology. The site below has lots of information on ANWR for those who may want to know more. Don't forget, however, that if the patriotism trend continues past November, it is very possible that a few more Republicans will be elected. That could change the outcome of the ANWR arguments. Yes, please vote Republican

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 05-03-2002).]

debates such as this (when informed people are involved) serve only to illustrate differences in values between those individuals or groups.

personally,

- i am a proponent of wise use of our resources - i'm a hunter-conservationist, not a hands-off preservationist

- i value wilderness, there's not enough of it left

- i am in favor of technological development in increasing our standards of living and continuing that increase into the future, however, i don't think that continued reliance on fossil fuel is the road to that future - we must start making the switch now to other energy options

given those stances, i simply feel that the wilderness value of the ANWR outweighs the potential economic or energy values to be gained from drilling - we should focus our efforts and funding on making wind power, solar, nuclear power, fuel cells, fuel efficiency, etc pay off rather than continuing to clutch at oil and trying to find more oil to solve our energy needs. oil is a nonrenewable resource, and will eventually run out . . .

well, that's my position, and i'm sticking to it. i guess we'll all have to agree to disagree, and let our representative government handle the messy details

First,I'll answer the question, then explain why I answered it the way I did.
Answer...No.

Drilling for oil can be done with very little impact on the enviroment. Roads to the drill pad can be constructed in the winter with very little if any sign of them when the ice melts.
Before they move the drill rig to the site A large heavy plastic diaper is spread out and all activity is done on this diaper. Anything spilled on the diaper is easily wiped up and disposed of properly. When the drilling is complete, if oil or gas was found, a small pump station and a pipeline either above or below ground is the only sign of the drilling.
If the sight of a drill rig or pump station offends your sensibilities, then you probably don't want them to drill.
Caribou love the pipelines and buildings, they provide heat, shelter from the wind and some protection from predators.
Bears, Polar and grizzly just stay away from the area when there is activity and return when it stops.
Muskox, I don't think they are near there.
Dall Sheep. Nope, they are in the mountains not the plains.
Wolves, yep, they follow the Caribou. Like Bears, if there is activity, they avoid the area and return when it stops.
Fox, you have to chase them away, unafraid of humans.
I won't comment on birds or small mammals such as Lemmings.

Before you make a decision on drilling in ANWR research the information on the area. Actually its a desert, very little precipitation. There may be trees there, but I never saw any. Its mostly tundra and a few bushes.
Don't believe the rhetoric from the Greenies or Oilies until you check it out.

Bingo! Wondered if anyone would take the bait.

I'm sure there are happy exceptions to my sweeping generalizations and that you are one of them.I realize also that SE is in some ways similar to Alaska.

I have been fortunate to have had some wonderful friends who are the people the rest of us here aspire to be. Knowing them has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. But as I'm sure you have observed, announcing one's sourdough factor often precedes the expression of some totally wacky idea like the virtues of grain elevators in Valdez, a Devils Canyon dam, dairy farms at Pt Mackenzie, towing water to California, tapping the energy of the aurora, stating that an oil spill will never happen, that the North Slope is an ideal location for a huge particle accelerator, and so on. I get around a little, even to remote reaches beyond greater Anchorage, and I stand by my general statements. The statisics bear me out. We are increasingly dependent on the dole. We are rapidly becoming a less educated population. Our collective ignorance factor is rising. Hence the effort to get an Alaskan history course in the public schools (which has failed to pass I think). Maybe the kids could teach their parents a little about the state and something about who those other people are who say they have been here a long while and precisely when and how god gave us the right to those checks in perpetuity. Aside from feeling personally offended, do you disagree with the tenor of the statement? Are we the heroic, independent, fire breathing woodsmen, killers of grizzlies with spears, dog mushers, and knowledgable people that we tell our dogs we are? I love the state and wish it were so.

So where do I get one?

And for the record, I too would like to see alternative energy sources come online. Many are under development, but it appears that fusion, fuel cells and the like are still a ways off in the future. What do we do until then? Bellyache and bitch about how evil and corrupt ALL of corporate America is and how stupid our political leadership is, or do we get off our butts and help push the wagon?

And let's not forget that we live in a market driven economy (for the most part). If these alternative energy sources are to come into being, there has to be a demand, meaning it has to be competively priced.

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

Do you really think that we should love the fools and knaves who brought us Enron and who have no interest in conservation as one tool in addressing our long term energy problems? Or that we should be happy with the messes that have been made in many parts of the country by the people you so warmly endorse now and presumably also their predecessors.

And as for getting off our butts and doing something for the future, what have you done? I have done fusion research at one of the national labs. Obviously, not everyone has the opportunity or background to do that, but informed criticism of current policy and proposals is vital as well and a very useful contribution. Without it, nothing will change. And as I'm sure you recognize, extending our current consumptive patterns to a burgeoning US and world population will be a disaster.

If I had my choice, we wouldn't be faced with decisions like whether or not to drill in ANWR. But since other workable energy sources are still a long ways off, like it or not we still need oil.

Again, what's the fix? We need energy. Given the present technology, oil will continue to supply it for some time to come.
I don't see any way around it for the foreseeable future.

Tim

------------------
What we detest most in others is what we fear most in ourselves.

Last week the oil companies were being investigated for price fixing at the pump. Drilling in the arctic is just more of the oil companies rhetoric and bullshit. The U.S will burn up the oil drilled in the arctic and it won't put a dent in americas consumption of oil.

Were these companies found guilty of price fixing already?

It seems that the original question has turned into an emotional conflict of some kind. Now emotions control our thinking. I do agree that The Farms Bill is a waste of money, and is an effort from both Republicans and Democrats to buy votes. But in general, "Corporate America," the governments and other entities employ must of us, and the middle and upper class (including member of "corporate America") pay most of the taxes.

Regardless of how we feel about technology research we still depend on oil for most of our activities, and it will take a great number of years to explore or find other energy sources. While in the US we stupefy ourselves arguing, France, Japan, and other countries use nuclear energy. For now all of us depend on the oil industry to provide us with plastics, gasoline, and even vaseline. We use automobiles, and airplanes to travel, and I bet a great number of us made it to Alaska...well, perhaps walking or swimming?

Even the environmentalists use automobiles, airplanes, and SUV's. Look at all those UN representatives who come to America to complain about pollution, ozone hole from cow exhaust, and all that BS...they travel in limousines, and jet aircraft. Everyone depends on oil from something.

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 05-09-2002).]