Yes, animals live in the wild, that we can agree upon. However, you make it sound that the small fraction of area used (2000 acres-which you never seem to address) equals the prime calving area. Another poster had a link to the actual impact area. We are talking a very small fraction of the prime land. Further you are speculating that such development will have a significant negative impact to the herd. These same arguments were made concerning the North Slope and the Alaskan pipeline. Did the sky fall? No, caribou thrived.
Everything else -- whether it would be to the benefit or detriment of a specific specie or species -- is speculation (with some speculations being more "informed" than others). The bottom lines are: the area would be altered, and the area is utilized by the wildlife of the refuge.
2000 acres impacted, millions acres that are not. Yours is an exclusive logic that would rather see us freeze to death in the dark rather than reasonably develop reserves that could be substantial with development and accomplishing that with MINIMAL disruption to the wildlife and perhaps to their benefit. Seems you want to follow the 'speculation' of the eco-extremeists that desire us to ultimately go back into the stone age.
It was not my intent to discuss the level of impact different development scenarios might cause. My intent was to reply to a poster and indicate that the 1002 area where oil and gas development would take place is utilized by wildlife of ANWR. 2,000 acres is not the entire prime calving area, but it's in the prime calving area. So much for stating the obvious.
Yours is an exclusive logic that would rather see us freeze to death in the dark rather than reasonably develop reserves that could be substantial with development and accomplishing that with MINIMAL disruption to the wildlife and perhaps to their benefit.
I advocate scenarios that would have maximum benefit for this country. Because of that, I advocate increased use of nuclear power and development of biofuels (notably cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass) that would substantially change our energy and fuel-use infrastructure, not prolong a dependency on petroleum that endangers our national security and long-term economic future. ANWR oil, no matter how it is sliced and diced, will have a short-term, low-impact effect on the overall fuel use profile of the United States. You might not want to take that from me -- you might want to read the post earlier in this thread that expressed the opinion of strong conservative Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who holds a Ph.D. (in physics, I think) and see why he opposes ANWR drilling.