Information pertaining to wildlife in ANWR. The reserve is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. Again, the exploration/ production area is in the coastal plains, the sea is frozen 8 months of the year and a small portion of the listed wildlife actually occupies the area.

Mammal List
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located in the northeast corner of Alaska. In this region of extensive cold, much of the Refuge's soils are underlain with permafrost.

The Beaufort Sea washes against the north coast of the Refuge. These waters remain ice-covered for eight or more months each year. The ice pack is the winter home for polar bear and numerous seals. During the summer, whales migrate through these waters.

South of the coast lies a broad expanse of flat arctic tundra composed mostly of sedges and low shrubs. Musk oxen live year-round on this coastal plain, and caribou produce their calves here in late spring.

The arctic tundra rises to the south through foothills to the rugged, rocky mountains of the Brooks Range. Dall sheep search for winter forage along windblown slopes, while marmots hibernate within stony crevices for nine months each year.

Further south, mountains gradually merge into the spruce and shrubs of the boreal forest. Beaver, mink, and moose, as well as numerous small rodents, inhabit the wet meadows, bogs, and rivers within this forested region.

(Scientific names follow Checklist of the Mammals of Alaska, 1998, by G.H. Jarrell, S.O. MacDonald, and J.A. Cook. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks Alaska.)

INSECTIVORES (shrews)
____ Masked (Common) Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Moist tundra, bogs, and forests.
____ Dusky Shrew (Sorex monticolus) Wet meadows south of the mountains.
____ Arctic Shrew (Sorex arcticus) Wet sedge tundra.
____ Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) Forests and bogs south of the mountains.

LAGOMORPHS (hares and rabbits)
____ Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) Forests and shrub thickets.

RODENTS (squirrels, mice, porcupines, etc.)
____ Alaska Marmot (Marmota broweri) Rocky, mountainous areas.
____ Arctic Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus parryii) Dry, sandy areas.
____ Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Spruce forests.
____ Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Ponds and marshes south of the mountains.
____ Beaver (Castor canadensis) Wooded streams.
____ Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Meadows and open forests south of the mountains.
____ Tundra Vole (Microtus oeconomus) Meadows near water south of the mountains.
____ Yellow-cheeked Vole (Microtus xanthognathus) Spruce forests near bogs.
____ Singing Vole (Microtus miurus) Tundra and shrub thickets near water.
____ Northern Red-backed Vole (Clethrionomys rutilus) Tundra and forests.
____ Brown Lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus) Wet tundra north of the mountains.
____ Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys borealis) Bogs, spruce forests, and meadows south of the mountains.
____ Collared Lemming (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus) Sedge tundra.
____ Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) Moist meadows and shrub thickets south of the mountains.
____ Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) Forests, shrub thickets, and tundra.

CANIDS (foxes and wolves)
____ Coyote (Canis latrans) Rare in open areas.
____ Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) All plant communities throughout the Refuge.
____ Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus) Tundra north of the mountains.
____ Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) All plant communities throughout the Refuge.

FELIDS (cats)
____ Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Forests throughout the Refuge.

URSIDS (bears)
____ Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Forests throughout the Refuge.
____ Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) Open areas throughout the Refuge.
____ Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Along the coast and on ocean ice.

MUSTELIDS (weasels)
____ Marten (Martes americana) Spruce forests.
____ Ermine (Mustela erminea) Open forests and tundra.
____ Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis) Open, wet areas.
____ Mink (Mustela vison) Near wet areas south of the mountains.
____ Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Forests and tundra.
____ River Otter (Lontra canadensis) Rivers and lakes mainly south of the mountains.

CERVIDS (deer)
____ Moose (Alces alces) Willow thickets and wet areas.
____ Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) All plant communities throughout the Refuge.

BOVIDS (goats and sheep)
____ Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) Tundra north of the mountains.
____ Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli) Rocky slopes and tundra in the mountains.

PINNIPEDS (seals and walrus)
____ Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) Rare along the coast.
____ Spotted Seal (Phoca largha) Coastal waters and on drifting ice.
____ Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) Ice along the coast.
____ Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus) Coastal waters and on drifting ice.

CETACEANS (whales)
____ Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Coastal waters.
____ Narwhal (Monodon monoceros) Rare in coastal waters.
____ Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Rare in coastal waters.
____ Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Coastal waters.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Tyler R.T.

Drill away. If it does impact the environment id rather it impact it in the arctic tundra than in the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere else!

Drill and be done with it!

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

Hi Guys
I say don't drill.
Their is so little of our spaceship that we havn't spoiled why risk something virtually untouched when there is no real need.
The untouched wilderness will be worth much more than oil in the long run.
Drilling is a bad, long term investment for us as a species.
Regards
Deafdog

------------------
deafdog@one.net.au
www.deafdog.one.net.au

A lot of good observations have been made here, from questions regarding the final disposition of the oil (is it for us or simply to pad the pockets of the oil companies by export profits?), to observations of our need to clue in to the fact that we need to curb our appetite for unrestrained consumption.

I'd like to add a couple more thoughts. Several years ago I took an engineering design course in solar power systems. The course opened with the observations that no significant new oil deposits have been identified in the last 30 years (we've found some new pockets but no new giant fields), and that the most optimistic estimates, factoring in the economic effects of increasing prices, predict that all known oil reserves will be expended by the middle of this century. Stop and think about that just a moment and consider all the things that we rely on petroleum to provide. Plastics, for example.

We, or certainly our children, are facing a serious crisis. But, as has been said here, the politicians have actually reduced government funding for initiatives to find alternative solutions to our energy needs (and in the long run that means fusion power, period). Everybody in the oil business is making money, just keeping pace with the demand (which is increasing at a geometric rate) so as to maximize profits (they don't want to pump it too fast because BIG money is going to be made at the end). There is absoutely no interest in finding a solution or in preserving a precious and non-renewable resource. Most of these guys will be dead by the time the disaster is looming so their attitude is "apres moi, le deluge".

So, as mush as I would like to preserve a wilderness area in its most pristine condition, its clear to me that it will be drilled, either now or in ten years or twenty. When we are reeling at $10 a gallon gasoline and clamoring for more supply to alleviate the lines there will be no resistance holding back the drilling. My question is: what then?

Just a Reminder:

The closing date for comments is Friday June 15 th. 2001.

Addressing some more previous comments:

The oil companies economic studies are predicated upon a 12% return on investment assuming the price per barrel does not fall below economic feasability.

The ANWR belongs to the U.S. Government. The customary method for oil companies to acquire drilling rights on Federal lands is expected to be by a bidding process. The revenue will be collected by the Government. Thus the taxpayers benefit.

There is some "Native Land" involved. However, the local Eskimos are opposed to drilling on their lands.

The disposition of pumped oil, that is its destination and final sale point, may be virtually impossible to control or track.
There is a vast difference in the composition of crude oil obtained from different parts of the world. Crude oil is not sold directly to consumers. It must first be refined. The refineries may be scattered in any number of places around the world. Alaskan oil may be refined in the USA if there is adequate capacity, it may be shipped overseas and refined, and then it may be returned to the USA or shipped elsewhere. If OPEC adopted the policy of not shipping any oil outside, and held it for local consumption, The USA would be in very desperate straits for product.

Taking into account the Geologic time scale of earth events, The first oil dicovered in the USA was in 1869 by Col. Drake in Titusville, Pennsylvania. Prior to that time there was no oil or gas consumption. Whale oil was used to fuel lamps. Whale oil is now obsolete.

On the North American continent the human species survived for about 13,000 years without oil and gas. In the space of 132 years internal combustion was invented, electricity was discovered and the country underwent an industrial revolution.

At approximately the time Columbus discovered America, 1492, there were, by some estimates, about 3 million humans occupying what is now the 48 states. At the turn of the previous century there were about 70 million. In 2001 there are over 270 million.

Is there enough for everybody? Can we feed 24 people at a table set for 6 places? Perhaps the time has come to think the unthinkable, population control, Zero population growth.

Alternate energy sources include methanol, ( from corn and agricultural products ), solar panels, wind power, ocean power, nuclear.

Tyler R.T.

I concur with the comments in Mr. Tibbe's recent post on the advisability of taking a long range view of population growth and energy consumption.
On a personal note, I have enjoyed living out many of my boyhood fantasies (running wilderness traplines, exploring and hunting along remote rivers, and lots of other experiences in beautiful and natural settings). For a kid who grew up along a dead stream in the trashed out coal country of Pennsylvania, it has been a wonderful experience to run around the woods and rivers of Alaska for a couple of decades, and I hope that future generations will have the same opportunity. I think it is obvious, however, that the fuel and resource consumptive life style that we enjoy in North America cannot be extended to a population of 6+ billion without trashing the planet. All one has to do is consider the transformation of most of North America in the past couple of hundred years and extrapolate. Clean air and water was once a given. Even Chicago was a nice setting! I have made a living as a physicist (marten pelts don't pay the bills) and I am aware of how long it takes for general recognition of scientific fact, especially when the news is not pleasant. Our skepticism is very selective. (CFC depletion of ozone was a dramatic exception, but it has taken a long while for the link between smoking and lung cancer to be generally accepted, the church took about 400 years to concede that Galileo had a decent theory, and--although it was predicted decades ago-- only very recently do we seem ready to acknowledge the role of hydrocarbon combustion in global warming.) It does not appear likely to me that technology will get ahead of the population curve if our present growth rate continues. As one person put it, our greatest difficulty is understanding an exponential curve. I hope (although I am not optimistic on this) that we will seriously consider reducing our fuel and resource consumption, limit population growth, and leave large areas of the planet in a natural state. I think a good start is keeping ANWR closed to oil extraction. The worst consequence of that choice would be(if there is oil there)that we would leave some chemical feedstocks for future generations!

June 15, 2001

The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
Vice-President of The United States
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Vice President:

With regard to President Bush's energy policy, and more particularly to oil and gas drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, an informal public opinion poll was conducted, between June 1st and June 15th, 2001, on an Internet website forum that is frequented by hunters and shooters throughout the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. Two basic questions were asked: #1. What was their opinion about drilling; #2. What was their opinion about the environmental aspect.

Herewith attached are 29 pages of printout with 42 replies. The resulting tally was:

............Drill.....Do not drill.....NA

Americans....25............7............8
Foreigners....0............2............0

In view of the recent shift from Republican to Democrat control of the Senate we wish to make known to all the sentiments and position of serious sportsmen about the issue.

Yours Very Truly:
William E. Tibbe, Sr.

Encl: Opinion poll

Thank you respondents. Vice President Chaneys letter has been mailed.

Your participation has been greatly appreciated.

Regards

Tyler R.T., Staff Engineer

I know little about drilling, so I will say drill only:

IF the technology is truely and provably mature and reliable, if not, we wait.

IF appropriate safegards are in place, agreed to, and stiff penalties for their being breached.

And, finally, IMHO we should develop but then save the whole thing as an on-line strategic reserve, use ONLY if OPEC or someone pulls a 1974 style embargo. Don't just pump it into the pockets of big oil so we can all drive our SUV's 5 mph faster for the same price. Yes, making business sense out of this would be a pain. I think we save it for a national security crisis, as mentioned above.

Drill it.

------------------
"If you can keep your head about you when all others are loosing theirs and blaiming it on you..."

I vote NOT TO DRILL. The United States use approximately 25% of the world�s energy. Since any oil drilled from the arctic will be sold on the international market, even if there is a 6 month reserve for the entire world, we (the US) will only receive 6 week benefit. However, we will pay 100% for any environmental degradation. A 25% benefit for 100% liability does not seem like a sound business decision to me (unless you believe that a few people reaping the profits while 300 million pay the bill is a good deal).

OK then, lets imagine we have "population control." How can that possibly help the US when we don't have population control in some other countries that are even more populated than the US? Are we going to build a very large electrified fence to keep non-US residents outside? What will we do when we don't have young Americans; import them from overseas, or just create clones?

Population control may work to a point if all countries practice it, but the answer is on developing new energy sources if we don't want to depend on oil. If we can find the way to protect the environment and drill for oil, sooner or later we will do it.

Nino & Ray:

The liberals and "tree huggers, e.g., environmentalists apparently want to protect ANWR in its unspoiled, virgin state. That means no roads, no holes in the ground, no disturbances, no incursions, no industrialization - leave it alone. Period!

I can empathize with them but at the same time it sends me into fits of laughter - when the shoe is on the other foot - it pinches! Roll back the calendar to the year 1492. Columbus discovered the Americas *( Actually he landed in La Vela, Venezuela ). Then 1620, the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. There were estimated, by some, to be about 3 million omnivorous, bipedal, "humans" Red Skins, Indians, already living - not very peacefully - in the woods and on the plains. And THEN - here came the white men and the Indians said ------ how many are there and where are they all coming from????????????? And they just kept on coming, desecrating, pillaging, plundering, taking and taking in ALL of the Americas both North and South. *( ref. The Conquistadors ). So now we have 280,000,000. Then it will be 500,000,000 and then 750,000,000. But not to worry, we won't have to do anything about the population explosion. Of an absolute certainty, as sure as the sun rises, Mother Nature will take care of the problem. But you won't like her solution.

Speaking of Alaska, the State is about 2,400 miles across East to West and probably 1,000 miles wide, North to South. It extends 1,000 miles West of Hawaii and Little Diamode Island is less than 3 miles from Russia! It is said to be bigger than California, Texas and Montana combined.

The population of Anchorage is about 250,000 to 270,000, Fairbanks about 30,000 and the entire State about 600,000 people. It ranks 48th in population but 1st in land size ( 586,412 square miles ). And it ranks 3rd in average family income.

As a result of oil revenues there is no income tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund - state oil revenues invested in stocks bonds and real estate - each Alaskan, regardless of age, receives an annual check. The dividends have ranged between $900 and $2,000. The Alaska Permanent Fund portfolio represents one of the largest investment portfolios in the world. Many parents use this to establish a college fund for their children.

Does this begin to shed some light on the advantages of drilling for oil?

==========================================

Tyler R.T.

We have the technology to drill and move oil in a much cleaner or safer way than the way it was accomplished years ago. The "old way" of doing things does not have to be discarded, but instead, improved to avoid the pitfalls of the past. For example, fuel cell technology was difficult in the past (1930's); one big problem was that its operation would result in high levels of carbon monoxide. But, have you read the latest information on this subject? Did you know that a great number of companies have been working with small fuel-cell prototypes?

While we continue researching and developing new energy sources, we still need oil. Population control is just a piece of the puzzle, but it is not the answer to our dependency on oil.

Money is a great incentive, and the person or persons who discover and patent new and better products to produce energy will be in a pool of money. Don't you think for a minute that nobody has those goals in mind, nor that electricity will be the only energy in the near future. Soon a fuel-cell unit the size of a small air conditioner should be able to produce enough electrical power to run all the appliances in a home, and at the same time produce most of the hot water needed.

For the time being we still need oil, and if we don't produce it we must buy it from other nations. California and its electricity problems is a good example. If they would produce their own power, they would not have to buy it from other States.

Here is a starting point on Fuel Cells, but if you search the NET you will find a great number of sites pertaining to Fuel Cell technology:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/fuelcells/future/furmain.htm

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 07-17-2001).]

City of Kaktovik
ANWR Survey

A $25,000 grant was given to the City of Kaktovik by the State of Alaska to educate people about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the funds, the City of Kaktovik has developed a web site, made a calendar and taken a survey of the people of Kaktovik. The survey asks questions of the local residents regarding current oil development practices on the North Slope of Alaska and their opinions of future oil development. There were 68 people surveyed and the results of the survey are posted here. The people of the village of Kaktovik will be the ones most affected by oil development and exploration on ANWR. Their opinions should be considered when a decision is being made.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact the City of Kaktovik mailto:citkak2@aol.com

ANWR Education Survey

1. Do You participate in the harvest of whales, game and fish to sustain your diet?

71% A. Yes. My family actively participates in all of the above.

16% B. Yes. My family hunts game and fishes.

4% C. Yes. My family participates in fishing.

7% D No. My family does not harvest whales, game or fish to sustain our diet.

0% E. Other

2. Please estimate the percentage of your family's food that comes from the harvest of whale, game and fish.

16% A. 100% My family only consumes harvested game.

34% B. 75% My family eats mostly harvested game.

24% C. 50% My family eats some harvested game and purchases the rest.

16% D. 25% My family occasionally eats harvested game.

7% E. 10% My family eats harvested gamed when it is given to us.

4% F. 0% My family does not hunt or fish and we only eat food that is purchased.

3.What is the number one advantage of oil development on the North Slope?

44% A. Improved schools

35% B. Improved health care

53% C. Improved job opportunities

21% D. Improved recreation activities

4% E No advantage

8% F. Other

4. The quality of life in Kaktovik will diminish if oil development ceases.

31% A. Strongly agree

40% B. Agree

15% C. Neutral

8% D. Disagree

6% E. Strongly disagree

5. As government spending continues to decline, what public services do you fear most of losing?

44% A. Municipal services (running water, electrical service, sanitation, etc.)

50% B. Health care

16% C. Public Transportation

35% D. Education

7% E. Recreation activities

6% F. Other

6. To what degree are you satisfied with the environmental practices of the oil industry on the North Slope?

35% A. Very satisfied

40% B. Somewhat satisfied

18% C. Neutral

4% D. Somewhat dissatisfied

1% E. Very dissatisfied

7. Please mark the advantages and disadvantages you see of opening ANWR to oil and gas development.

Advantages: Disadvantages:
68% More jobs for local people 22% Will increase population
26% Will stabilize the economy 31% May hurt wildlife
50% Will help Kaktovik grow 25% May hurt the environment
26% More business opportunities 46% lncreased alcohol/drug abuse
13% Other 5% Other

8. If ANWR is not opened to oil and gas exploration, what other resources are available in Kaktovik that, if developed, will help sustain our economy?

15% A. Coal

35% B. Tourism

38% C. Fishing

44% D. Arts& Crafts

15% E. Other

9. Based on your information about the Porcupine Caribou Herd, will oil development in ANWR diminish the herd's use of the core calving area?

18% A. Yes. The caribou will go away.

18% B. It might affect their use, but the oil companies can stop drilling during calving season.

15% C. I don't know.

15% D. More research is needed.

41% E. No. The caribou will not be affected.

10. The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration.

43% A. Strongly agree

35% B. Agree

10% C. Neutral

5% D. Disagree

4% E. Strongly disagree

============================================

So - the people of Kaktovik have spoken. In a recent news reoprt it was stated that 58% of Americans now support drilling in ANWR.

============================================

Tyler R.T.

Brought forward for reference to Dick Cheneys letter reply.

Kendall Dace