Posted on 09/09/2001 12:20:28 PM PDT by logic101.net
I find it quite interesting (but not surprising) to note that in the Sept issue of Field and Stream that the 4 letters regarding drilling for oil in AK that had a location, the two that were pro-drilling were from Alaskans, while the two that were adamantly opposed to drilling were from NY and WA States. I have also noticed that most people who are opposed to logging in the Tongrass National Forest are also not people who live in AK. It seems that everyone that has no personal connection with AK wants the people who live there to have no voice in what happens in their state! Of course, Alaskans are just crude, ignorant people who live in houses cut out of the pack ice, right? Why should they have any say? I have lived in AK. I have been to Valdez. I have crossed Prince William Sound. I know the beauty of the state. When I left, I promised AK that I would die there; it is my adopted home. I know how Alaskans feel about their state, for it is my state also; even though I am temporarily displaced. Alaskans are the most fiercely environmentally protective people in the nation. The vast majority of them are avid fishermen. The percentage of hunters in AK dwarfs that of any other state. A large percentage of the economy of AK is hunting and fishing tourism. Not to mention tourists who come up to just see the pristine beauty of the area. Alaskans are very conscious of how fragile their ecology, and their economy is. They are very aware of the fact that if the beauty goes away, so does the tourism money. Had the promise made to the Alaskan people not been ignored, the Exxon-Valdez spill would not have happened. Alaskans were promised that all tankers would be double hulled to prevent spills. This promise was promptly ignored in DC. The fact that a single hulled tanker had Valdez as part of it's name was a major slap in the face to all Alaskans. Had Alaskans had control of their own state, as provided by the Constitution Of The United States; Exxon would be out of the state entirely, and the Captain of the Exxon-Valdez would have been hung by the neck until dead. Alaskans are used to being used and taken for granted by the lower 48; especially from Washington DC and Washington State. These two areas have been a chronic problem for AK (for a flavor of the history of this James Mitchner's book; ALASKA is not only a great reference but a very interesting read after the 5th chapter). Anyone who is politically aware knows that the people of the west are really disgusted with Federal land grabs, and with the Feds telling them what they can and can't do with their land. No state has had to deal with this on a more vast or oppressive scale, or for longer than Alaska has. The vast majority of the state has been stolen by the federal government! The area in question, ANWAR, is larger than the state of Texas! ANWAR is just one of hundreds of vast tracts of land that has been taken out of the hands of Alaskans by the Feds. Yet, even though they live there, Alaskans have no say in what happens on those lands, or in those waters. The comments about drilling in ANWAR from lower 48 residents were also quite interesting. Mr John T Hess of Albany NY is afraid that since there MAY be drilling in a 20 acre section of Alaska, a state that would go from Maine to California if it were placed over the lower 48, he won't have anyplace to hunt in NY State. An interesting quote from Mr Hess is; "Perhaps when all our recreational resources are gone, and our guns are rusting in our closets...." Let's see, opening up 20 acres out of an area larger than TX, that is over 3000 miles from him means that he'll not have any land to hunt? He seems to feel that Al Gore would have been a better candidate for hunters. But; let's review here. One of the Clinton/Gore mandates was roadless National Parks. Ok, maybe that would make for better wildlife, maybe not. But, without roads; who can get to them? Let's say Mr Hess walks 50 miles into the wilderness to get to his hunting spot, and shoots a deer. Is he really going to drag that deer 50 miles back? The only people who will have access to good hunting will be the rich; those that can afford not only a riding horse, but a pack horse as well. Ms Rebecca Gomez of Pasco, WA thinks that Bush is anti-conservation because of his position on drilling in AK. She goes on to imply that this drilling will destroy our ecology nation wide. She states that, "...this country cannot continue a tradition of hunting and fishing without a respect for the needs of wildlife." Well, Ms Gomez, we can't continue this tradition if Al Gore takes away our roads, our cars, and our guns either! Maybe he'd have let us hunt with horses and bows and arrows, maybe not. Even if he did, how many of us can afford a horse? How many city dwellers have a place to keep a horse? To claim that drilling in ANWAR will damage wildlife is to ignore the facts of recent history. There has been a boom in the Caribou population as a direct result of the pipeline from the North Slope. This is because in the winter, the pipeline creates warmer air, which melts the ice cover; allowing them to get to the moss and other forage they survive on. Yes, there has been a decline in Polar Bears, but only because the caribou are healthier now; predators prey on the weak and sick (or dead). I'd really like to know why people who have never been to AK always claim to be experts? But it is not surprising, many who have never served in the military (like Clinton) claim to be experts in that field. MARK A SITY www.logic101.net
I must recuse myself from this discussion, for obvious reasons...
-A Few Useful Tips for new Forum users ( Free Dominion )--
-Learn how to fix blank graphics & dead links--
The second's mostly a rehash of the first, but has some advanced info toward the end.
Minor tip? Print it out, it's much easier to follow from a page than on-screen!
johnr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.