I have to admit, I am kind of happy (not really really happy, just kind of) that Senator Stevens rider to open ANWR to drilling got thumped.
Part of me wanted to see it happen, as an Alaskan, it would mean more $$ in the economy, improve schools, improve roads, etc.
Part of me wanted to see it happen as a greedy socialist who gets a share of the Permanent Fund. The more $$ it makes, the more cash I get each year.
But the hunter won out. Sure, ANWR is not unlike millions of other acres of Alaska North Slope, with ONE exception. It was NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. The precedent of "there is something of value there we want, so we will take it, refuge be damned" frightened me as a hunter.
Above all else, money, things, and comfort, I love to hunt. I am going on a two week hunt in the Alaskan bush this fall for moose, another week for black bear this spring, and probably a deer hunt later on. I love tent hunting, backpack hunting, and packing out meat. I hope my sons can enjoy the same things I did.
So, I am glad that at least for now, the ANWR stays closed.
Alaska Magnum I too am glad it got dumped. But only for the manner in which the provisionwas being done.
The reasons you have stated are an example of the NIMBY.
It should by now be clear to anyone, that atomic energy, and hydrogen energy derived fromthe use of atomic energy,is sooner or laterthe future.
As long as it's N.ot I.n M.y B.ack Y.ard.
Drilling for oilanywhere effects hunting, just as long as it doesn't effect an area that has more square miles per-person for public huntingthan any other part of the USA?
What is the useage rate, per-person for ANWR, compared to other Wildlife Management Areas?
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
My reason is because it is a wildlife REFUGE and THAT precedent scares me. I am sure there will always be a reason to timber, mine, drill, whatever a refuge, but they are not to be touched. THAT is why they were set aside in the first place.
Drilling on the north slope does not bother me in the least. Allowing Congress to drill in a wildlife refuge (you can hunt this one too) is a precedent thatI as a hunter fears.
Alaska Magnum, perhaps it is just a reflection on my ignorance concerning the difference between aWildlife Management Area and a Wildlife Refuge Area.
But in my state timber cutting is a basic part of the equation and, as far as I know, procuring Coal and Natural Gas and Timber as well as GrazingPrivilagesare a part of WMAs(wildlife management areas) out west.
I have to confess to ignorance though, I have never looked to see if the is a difference between a WRA(wildlife refuge area) and a WMA(wildlife management area).
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
So what exactly lives in area 1002 of ANWR other than the precious tundra grasses that grow for about 2 months out of hte year?
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
my understanding is the refuge is HUGE and they are talking about drilling in a fairly small spot, then "sucking" oil from underground from miles around. if this is true, what is the "wildlife" impact to loosing a small amount of the available land balanced against the energy needs of our country?
I don't believe we are talking about ruining the area, just a small piece of the area that would be taken, when done with it I assume it would then regrow into what it is today?
I don't have time to look it up, but I don't believe drilling in ANWR would be totally unprecedented. Not that they have drilled there before, but that other WRs get timber harvested, etc. I think, but could be wrong, that that is the primary difference between a wildlife refuge and a national park.
Now, that doesn't address whether or not we need to drill in ANWR, which I can't believe we do. Didn't we just invade that most oil rich country on the planet? I want gas to be pretty much ****ing free from this point on and I don't expect to need to drill ANWR to get it. If nothing else good comes out of Iraq, we ought to at least be getting cheap oil by now.
As far as drilling for oil just being a matter of going in, tapping the oil and leaving, it isn't anywhere near that simple. For one thing, it isn't that quick - they'll be there for decades once they go into the ground.
For another, oil drilling is a messy, polluting business. It creates inevitable runoff and spillages that foul everything around it forever - it doesn't go away once it's in the ground water, on the soil, etc. This is a linkto a site explaining some of the damage drilling causes (it focuses on maritime drilling but also covers some about ground drilling).
If oil drilling were as simple and clean and left an area as open to renewing itself as, say, logging, it wouldn't be much of an issue. As it is, oil drilling will ruin the area that gets drilled in and possibly the surrounding areas.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Oil runoff fouls everything around forever? Nonsense.
Last I heard, Prince William Sound is not a desolate toxic wasteland even though the biggest oil spill in history happened there.
Its not like we are dumping radioactive waste in Alaska, oil breaks down over time, in fact some organisms thrive off the stuff.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
I'm glad it got taken out of the Defense Appropriations bill. I say vote up or down on drilling ANWAR, don't cheat by attaching it to other legislation. I don't know what is the right thing with regards to drilling in ANWAR. I think anyone who thinks drilling ANWAR solves our oil dependency problems is foolish. Long term we need to be thinking about consuming less oil and about other energy sources. We might even think about consuming less energy. I'm not saying solutions are in place today, but we ought to be looking actively for them now because well is gonna run dry some day, folks.
By the way, I'm talking a little hypothetically above. I drive a Chevy Suburban to work every day and use a lot of air conditioning. I drive long distances to go hunting and to visit family. Personally I think it is naive to think unilaterally changing my energy consumption profile is going to change anything.
Oil runoff fouls everything around forever? Nonsense.
Last I heard, Prince William Sound is not a desolate toxic wasteland even though the biggest oil spill in history happened there.
Its not like we are dumping radioactive waste in Alaska, oil breaks down over time, in fact some organisms thrive off the stuff.
AmI reading you right here, Briman, that you think Prince William sound is better off today than it was before the spill? Which part of that ecosystem is doing better because of the spill?
And you are just plain wrong on oil breaking down - when spilled in the ocean it may disolve in the water to a sufficient level where it may not be particularly harmful to much of anything, but when it is in a lake or your ground water, it ruins it. And it does not break down. It lasts forever or until it gets carried away, which, on land, does not happen as fast as it does in the ocean.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Cutting my own throat
