At 11:28 PM 5/19/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
>> Well, I disagree completely with this - I think that the designation is
>> *everything* here. In my humble opinion, if the proposal was to drill on
>> some "Bureau of Land Mangement" Area - this issue would not be on anyone's
>> radar screen.
>
>We don't seem to be on the same page, here. Whether or not the land is
>classified by whatever agency as wilderness has no bearing on territory that
>fits the dictionary definition of wilderness;
Still - I again hold that if this was BLM land meeting the dictionary
definition of "wilderness", this issue would not be on the public radar
screen. It is only the public perception that a Wildlife Refuge roughly
equals a National Park and is therfore not supposed to be developed that
provides the political support the environmental movement has needed to
hold off development for this long as it is.
>No one is confused about that John. The information on this U.S. Fish and
>Wildlife page gives an idea of why people want to preserve the coastal plain:
>http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html
You and I aren't. Movement environmentalists aren't. I think that vast
majority of the public (i.e. the people who answer the public opinion polls
that govern the actions of the politicians controlling this issue) are.
>I find your statement about corporations, especially where it concerns the
>mega multi nationals to be a bit absurd.
I'm not about to get into an argument over whether conservative or liberal
websites are more prone to exaggeration. For a good dose of hypocrisy
with bravado on this issue, check out this column:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010516ctnjg-a.htm
Corporations exist by making people better off. If a given transaction
does not make you better off, then you don't make it - and without
transactions, corporations, even big multi-nationals, die.
>"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unit in the National
>Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is America's finest example of an intact,
>naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a broad
>spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is
>unparalleled in North America, and perhaps in the entire circumpolar north.
>When the Eisenhower Administration established the original Arctic Range in
>1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as: 'one of the world's great
>wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this
>compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its
>selection as ... one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers.'"
What hooey!
Let me cite this again: "community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a
broad
spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is
unparalleled in North America,"
It is so laughably easy to find protected units with three ecosystems in
them in North America, you almost wonder if these people take their
propaganda seriously. Shall I start tiking off the places in North
America with multiple protected ecosystems Doug, or do you concede that
this is another example of gross exaggeration?
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
