AKHighmark
New member
Does it matter what the other herds poulations were? Your assertion is that development will adversly effect the animals. How can this be if the herd is 10 times larger now?
Dubya says drill first, hunt what's left (again)
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
guppie9
New member
AKH...That sounds good to me, or next time I'm in Anchortown, we can do the same.
Buzz...The only other studies that I could find on the subject stated that arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. Other than that, I can't speak to it.
YRH...You asked about how development effects caribou herds. Since there was no oil development near those other 3 herds, I don't see how it is relevant. Secondly, my numbers are not a red herring. Quite the opposite. As I see it, saying there is only a 6-9 month supply is deceiving, because we don't get our oil from 1 oil field. I'm sure that if you used that logic on the oil fields in the middle east, you would probably get equally disturbing numbers. The fact is that Alaska now supplies about 1 out of every 6 barrels of oil that the U.S. uses. I don't see how doubling that number by tapping ANWR is a bad thing. It would significantly reduce our dependence on other countries for a long time.
Buzz...The only other studies that I could find on the subject stated that arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. Other than that, I can't speak to it.
YRH...You asked about how development effects caribou herds. Since there was no oil development near those other 3 herds, I don't see how it is relevant. Secondly, my numbers are not a red herring. Quite the opposite. As I see it, saying there is only a 6-9 month supply is deceiving, because we don't get our oil from 1 oil field. I'm sure that if you used that logic on the oil fields in the middle east, you would probably get equally disturbing numbers. The fact is that Alaska now supplies about 1 out of every 6 barrels of oil that the U.S. uses. I don't see how doubling that number by tapping ANWR is a bad thing. It would significantly reduce our dependence on other countries for a long time.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Guppie9,
Good comments, but don't waste too much of your time trying to educate the "gang".
Good comments, but don't waste too much of your time trying to educate the "gang".
Guppie.
I wouldn't worry about oak, his comments usually only mimic others anyway.
Buzz.
No matter what the outcome, the law will be followed by whoever has the best argument on this case.
I wouldn't worry about oak, his comments usually only mimic others anyway.
Buzz.
I am just guessing here, but I would bet there are lawyers on both sides getting rich on this topic trying to work the angle so the law fits into what they hope.
No matter what the outcome, the law will be followed by whoever has the best argument on this case.
guppie9
New member
MTM - Fair enough...You'll have to give me a few days to find those numbers. If memory serves me, though, the last I heard, the Mulchatna herd was down. Don't quote me on that as I may be wrong.
Hey Cheese, when was the last time you came up with an original idea? The things you hear on AM radio don't count.
I hope my ideas mimic folks on here like IT, MtMiller, 1_p, YRH, Buzz and a few others. Those guys form opinions based on science, instead of what Rush spoonfeeds them.
Cheese, every time you're questioned about something you post on here, you run away from answering with some excuse about how you're just being picked on. Back up what you say with facts and you might earn some respect. I have NEVER seen you even attempt to back up something when you're questioned.
Oak
I hope my ideas mimic folks on here like IT, MtMiller, 1_p, YRH, Buzz and a few others. Those guys form opinions based on science, instead of what Rush spoonfeeds them.
Cheese, every time you're questioned about something you post on here, you run away from answering with some excuse about how you're just being picked on. Back up what you say with facts and you might earn some respect. I have NEVER seen you even attempt to back up something when you're questioned.
Oak
I just received this from the NWF and thought of this thread.
Can't let this thread die quite yet.
Dear [email protected],
Right now, the stage is set for what could be the greatest battle to save the wildlife of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. EVER! Lobbyists for "Big Oil" and their allies in Congress have failed repeatedly to get Arctic oil drilling proposals approved as separate measures. But, they won't take NO for an answer.
That's why they are threatening to slip a drilling proposal into this year's budget bill where it won't be debated, as it should, out in the open as a separate measure. It amounts to a SNEAK ATTACK ON WILDLIFE!
And, it gets worse: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R- TX) claims the Arctic Refuge is "symbolic" of a larger battle. He believes if they can drill the Arctic Refuge for a short-term fix of oil... they can drill anywhere.
But the American public strongly disagrees with these anti-wildlife maneuvers. In a new poll, just released, a majority of citizens say: DON'T DRILL IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE. Save the precious wildlife species that have relied on Alaska's coastal plain for centuries: 135 bird species from four continents, muskoxen, wolverines, grizzly and polar bears... and the famous Porcupine caribou herd that relies on the area for its essential calving grounds.
Please donate today to help the National Wildlife Federation keep wild places like the pristine Arctic Refuge free from oil development and other major threats.
Please help us stop this latest attack.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger
President & CEO
National WIldlife Federation
Can't let this thread die quite yet.
Dear [email protected],
Right now, the stage is set for what could be the greatest battle to save the wildlife of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. EVER! Lobbyists for "Big Oil" and their allies in Congress have failed repeatedly to get Arctic oil drilling proposals approved as separate measures. But, they won't take NO for an answer.
That's why they are threatening to slip a drilling proposal into this year's budget bill where it won't be debated, as it should, out in the open as a separate measure. It amounts to a SNEAK ATTACK ON WILDLIFE!
And, it gets worse: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R- TX) claims the Arctic Refuge is "symbolic" of a larger battle. He believes if they can drill the Arctic Refuge for a short-term fix of oil... they can drill anywhere.
But the American public strongly disagrees with these anti-wildlife maneuvers. In a new poll, just released, a majority of citizens say: DON'T DRILL IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE. Save the precious wildlife species that have relied on Alaska's coastal plain for centuries: 135 bird species from four continents, muskoxen, wolverines, grizzly and polar bears... and the famous Porcupine caribou herd that relies on the area for its essential calving grounds.
Please donate today to help the National Wildlife Federation keep wild places like the pristine Arctic Refuge free from oil development and other major threats.
Please help us stop this latest attack.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger
President & CEO
National WIldlife Federation
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Miller,
So how much did you give them? Sounds like the same amount of hyperbole used by groups from the NRA to PETA when they want you to send money! One word the has been way over used to the point of making me want to puke is "pristine". Just for using that word, they won't get a donation from me.
So how much did you give them? Sounds like the same amount of hyperbole used by groups from the NRA to PETA when they want you to send money! One word the has been way over used to the point of making me want to puke is "pristine". Just for using that word, they won't get a donation from me.
guppie9
New member
For those of you who wanted control group numbers, I got bored at work today, so here you go.
Mulchatna Herd
1974 - 15-30,000
2000 - 150,000
Which equals a 500-1000% increase
Porcupine Herd
1979 - 100,000
1989 - 178,000
1998 - 129,000
Which equals a 29% increase
Northern Peninsula Herd
In the late 1990's, showed a decrease of 15-20,000 over last 20 years (No numbers that I could find showing the actual population)
Southern Peninsula Herd
Mid-1980's - 10,000
1994 - 2,000
Which equals a 500% decrease
40 Mile Herd
Early 1970's - 7500
1996 - 25,000
Which equals a 333% increase
And last but not least...
Central Arctic Herd in Prudhoe Bay
1965 - 3,000
2002 - 32,000
Which equals a 1066% increase
So there you go, make of them what you will. According to this, both the Northern and Southern Peninsula herds showed a decrease, while the Mulchatna, 40-Mile, and Porcupine herds showed an increase. I'm not sure of the significance of that. However, the fact that the Central Arctic herd showed an increase in spite of the development of Prudhoe Bay tells me that the development there did not have a negative impact on the animals. I am also impressed that the Central Arctic Herd had the highest percentage increase of any of the herds. However, in fairness, it is difficult to compare the CACH with the Porcupine Herd when it comes to percentages based on the sheer size of the Porcupine Herd to begin with.
Mulchatna Herd
1974 - 15-30,000
2000 - 150,000
Which equals a 500-1000% increase
Porcupine Herd
1979 - 100,000
1989 - 178,000
1998 - 129,000
Which equals a 29% increase
Northern Peninsula Herd
In the late 1990's, showed a decrease of 15-20,000 over last 20 years (No numbers that I could find showing the actual population)
Southern Peninsula Herd
Mid-1980's - 10,000
1994 - 2,000
Which equals a 500% decrease
40 Mile Herd
Early 1970's - 7500
1996 - 25,000
Which equals a 333% increase
And last but not least...
Central Arctic Herd in Prudhoe Bay
1965 - 3,000
2002 - 32,000
Which equals a 1066% increase
So there you go, make of them what you will. According to this, both the Northern and Southern Peninsula herds showed a decrease, while the Mulchatna, 40-Mile, and Porcupine herds showed an increase. I'm not sure of the significance of that. However, the fact that the Central Arctic herd showed an increase in spite of the development of Prudhoe Bay tells me that the development there did not have a negative impact on the animals. I am also impressed that the Central Arctic Herd had the highest percentage increase of any of the herds. However, in fairness, it is difficult to compare the CACH with the Porcupine Herd when it comes to percentages based on the sheer size of the Porcupine Herd to begin with.
AKHighmark
New member
Hmmm....very interesting data. Thanks guppie.
AKHighmark
New member
What happened to all the Anti crowd after FACTS were presented to refute their claims?
Similar threads
