Maybe you skimmed over this part of what Jacob Adams had to say
The Inupiat Eskimo people are the indigenous people of the Arctic coastal environment. We rely on the land and resources of the North Slope for our physical, our cultural and our economic well-being. We have watched the oil and gas devleopment at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere on the North Slope, and have seen first-hand how development can coexist with our natural resources and our way of life.
It is our exprience that carefully regulated oil exporation and development can take place on the private and public lands inside the Coastal Plain study area. We believe the oil industry has made good on its promise to preserve our environment, while providing economic opportunity for our people and energy security for our country.
I'm sorry that you are leaving. You have provided an interesting point of view, even though incorrect, of life in Alaska for those of us who live here. Perhaps next time you visit you could include the north coast in your travel plans. Please come in January and spend a few months, ten days is just not enough for that true Alaska experience. If you would actually explore the issue with an "open mind" you might see how important it is to those of us who live here.
While you are here on the thread, could you take a little time to answer some of Dr. Frank's questions?
"Why is it good, or necessary, or desirable for humans to stay off of land which looks much the same as it has for millenia?", "Why is the number 2000 magical?", "In what way is this valuable, these large numbers of species of flora and fauna? For eating? For looking at? For what?", "Since human society cannot ever logically be 'sustainable', isn't the only solution for all humans to die off?", and of course "Does land look prettier to you when it has oil underneath it which you cannot see?"
Notice I did not say uninhabited or never visited. Man can exist in wilderness without severely degrading its value as wilderness. Native peoples have been doing it for thousands of years, living in balance with nature. By balance I mean not interfering with the natural cycles. If man can harvest plants, or whales, or caribou, or whatever (which I have no problem with) in small enough numbers that those species continue in sustainable populations, then that is balance. When balance is lost we see bison and wolves eliminated from the plains and we see the timber industry clearcut then abandon the Great Lakes. I’d rather not see caribou (or polar bears, or musk oxen, or wolves, or any of the many other species who currently thrive in ANWR) eliminated from ANWR.
As for the magical 2,000 acres number ...that’s not my number, it’s what the supporters have used as a promise to convince others of the small impact drilling would have. I’m saying I can live with that number if they stick to it. Of course they won’t and that is why opponents aren’t buying it. Exploration itself, with its convoys of thumper trucks, could crisscross the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, damaging the fragile tundra. Beyond the 2,000 acres of production facilities will be miles of roads and other infrastructure. What’s wrong with roads? They will be built with gravel from extensive gravel pits (not in the 2,000 acres) and the altered drainage and dust generated could have adverse affects. Ice roads? Not enough water, and even if there was is draining streams, ponds, and lakes environmentally benign? Hardly.
No I don’t think land looks prettier with oil underneath it that cannot be seen. But the land is prettier when there are no oil facilities and roads in sight, and the wildlife, plants, and water still are. Of course this is subjective, so there is no right answer.
To answer another question (sorry, I forget who it was from) of course the caribou will drop their calves when they have to. The question is will those calves be in a situation that will maximize their survival rate. Anyone with cattle will tell you survival rate can vary greatly depending on conditions.
Which brings us back to the Gwich’in people. The survival of their culture depends on the survival of the caribou. Since I’ve taken the time and attempted to answer your questions maybe you could return the favor. I’ve had many questions go unanswered but I’d settle for answers on the following that I asked before: Do you care about the Gwich'in? If the culture (of the Inupiat) becomes dependent on oil, what happens when it runs out? Why should the needs of the Gwich'in be sacrificed to accommodate the Inupiat? Aren't the wishes of the Gwich'in more in line with the traditional way of life, that if not interfered with, can continue for centuries, unlike a culture dependent on oil?