Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.
They've owned that land for thousands of years. What
right do you have to take it, or their resources, and
destroy their culture?
Which is pretty much what the Feds did when they made it a reserve.
That is an absolutely false statement. The Feds, by
making it a reserve, did *nothing* that impaired the
people who were then using the resources.
The feds own the land What gives them the right to decide to keep the
owners in poverty by not allowing them to develop their own land?. BTW:
did they actually own it.
They did actually own it, according to the US
Constitution and rulings from the US Supreme Court.
Congress in 1972 legislated a "settlement act" that paid
for that title, and transfered it legally to the US
Federal government. Moral or not is open to question,
but that is the legal history.
Making ANWR a wildlife refuge certainly doesn't keep
them in poverty either, and allowing ANWR to be
destroyed by oil exploration would not alleviate any
poverty there either. We do have a treaty with Canada
that *requires* that we protect the areas resources.
Suggesting otherwise is a bit of abject ignorance...
All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.
Do you have a point?
Yep. That no one is discussing messing with this section here.
What point does that make?
As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.
Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it.
Your take. So it MUST be true and the only way to go?
At least I do have some idea what the heck we are
talking about. You seem to be totally ignorant of the
entire subject.
Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for
exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that
option should be studied because there was a potential.
It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been
consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which
is why exploration has not passed into law.
They certainly did. Congress passed the law that said it was hokey
dokey to go ahead, it was Clinton unilaterally who said otherwise as a
sop to his base.
No they did *not*. Congress passes bills. It does not
just become a law because of that. The fact is that
that proposal did *not* become a law. That's the way
our government works.
Note that Congress could have, but did not, override the
veto. Note that Congress could have, but has never,
again passed such legislation while other Presidents
were in office.
Your point is exceedingly weak.
It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.
That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it
was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically
there is no correlation between that and whether there
would or would not be an impact.
It was set aside for exploration by Congress. they looked at
it and the impact was such that they approved it.
First, Congress alone *cannot* set anything aside, for
exploration or otherwise. But regardless, what was done
did *not* set the 1002 Area aside for exploration. They
set it aside for study to determine if that was or was
not an appropriate use. Obviously, given the two major
studies that have been completed since then by the USGS
(1987 and 1998), the fact that no law has been passed to
authorize any such exploration should tell you
something.
A little history for you.
From:
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section1
In the 1950s, post-war construction and accelerating
resource development across Alaska raised concerns
about the potential loss of this region's special
natural values. In 1952-53, government scientists
conducted a comprehensive survey of potential
conservation areas in Alaska. Their report, "The Last
Great Wilderness," identified the undisturbed
northeast corner of Alaska as the best opportunity
for protection.
Two major consequences followed:
+ In 1957, Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton of the
Eisenhower Administration revoked the previous
military withdrawal on 20 million acres of the
North Slope of Alaska to make it available for
commercial oil and gas leasing. This was in
addition to the previously established 23 million
acre Naval Petroleum Reserve.
+ In 1960, Secretary Seaton designated 8.9 million
acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeast
Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range to
protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness and
recreation values."
So we see that ANWR originated *specifically* as an area
for preservation as opposed to an area for oil
exploration. 43 million acres was designated for oil,
8.9 for conservation.
In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
was passed. It added to the refuge, designating much
of it as wilderness, but did not make a decision on whether
the coastal plain should be wilderness or not, and instead
required further study of wildlife and other resources.
ANILCA, in Paragraph 1003, specifically says:
"production of oil and gas from the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other
development leading to production of oil and gas from
the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by
an act of Congress."
So your claims that some part of the refuge somehow has
legal status as a place for oil exploration is abjectly
ignorant of history.
As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil
production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there
is no question at all that there is in fact that impact.
yeah right.
But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased
from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977.
Pure ignorance.
First, *every* credible caribou biologist that has done
field work on the North Slope says exploration in ANWR
should *not* be done. (Do a web search on the names
Whitten, Cameron, Griffith, and Nellemann.)
Second, your numbers are incorrect though that makes no
difference, because you are *not* citing the number of
those caribou that actually frequent the Prudhoe Bay
complex. The facts are that 1) drilling commenced there
long before 1977; 2) caribou studies began there in the
late 1960's; 3) in the 1960's virtually the entire
Central Arctic Caribou Herd, which then had about 5000
animals, was calving at what is now part of the Prudhoe
Bay complex; 4) today, even though the herd has peaked at
over 30,000 animals, there are actually significantly
*fewer* caribou using that area for any reason; 5)
calving caribou cows do not go near oil infrastructure;
6) the herd moved its calving activities to one of the
many others available to it; 7) that herd has a *huge*
range which is vastly far away from oil infrastructure.
In other words, you are counting caribou that are 200
miles from the oil fields and saying that means they are
not bothered by those oil fields, even though virtually
none of them will now calve where they used to because
of the oil development.
If you want counts of caribou that actually do frequent
the oil production area:
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
RD Cameron, WT Smith, RG White, and B Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
Opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been
driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to
Prudhoe Bay.
Extinction, no; for population decline see above.
Another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades.
That is not hardly Arctic tundra, nor are there
significant numbers of caribou there. Which is to say
that comparing that apple to an orange doesn't tell us
anything at all about this orange.
The oil production
there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even
though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.
Another false statement. If has less wildlife
diversity, is not particularly unique, and does have
problems.
Oh, the humanity!!!!
These figures BTW are from Alaska's government figures.
You gave no accurate figures. Don't try to bull**** me
about sources either. What I cited for you above are
*the* people who did the research and wrote the reports
(for the State of Alaska). They don't agree with you on
either the specifics or on the significance.
You should try it sometime.
You did not even want to question the facts as I stated
them, but went of with false statements and illogical
philosophy.
First of all the original post was fact free, just statements about
False statements. Fact free is true.
how it should not have been done. It studiously ignored the fact that
the area in question was put aside for drilling SUBJECT to CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL which was given, but then a single man, Mr. C, stopped the
No, NOT subject to congressional approval. Subject to
law, and no such law has ever come to be.
Congressional approval. Also there is little indication of "horrendous
impact" on Prudhoe Bay,
If that is so true, why was BP again fined millions of
dollars just the other day for illegal pollution?
Why does *every* biologist of any credibility at all say
we should not drill in ANWR?
Why is Prudhoe Bay a SuperFund site?
another fact free zone since you did not deem
fit to actually apply a fact or two.
Oh really...
Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?
Seems more than you do.
Oh, when is that going to be demonstrated?
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)