Senate votes to allow Alaska wildlife refuge

"For those that knocked Alaskans and referred to us as "monster truck driving fucktards," That comment came from a life-long Alaskan of nearly 4 decades-(and you read it out of context)--I have seen my share of oil industry benefits and the costs------To me it has not been worth it---I have spent my life traveling all over AK, working in the fishing and construction industry, as well as guiding----If you're as Alaskan as you claim to be AKBC, surely you can see the number of people who live here are not here solely for the "Alaskan" experience. Most of these people would live anywhere as long as they had the same economic situation, and most probably would rather live down south. -----And as for Friendly? (you obviously dont drive much around Anch.)I think that you can find friendly people anywhere you go(and assholes too) so I dont really think that Alaskans have a monopoly on that!!!
As for Economic Importance---Sen Ted Stevens, hands down is the most important economic factor in this state!!!! without his ability to spend federal money , the lights would have gone out in the early eighties
After the federal government, tourism is the largest employer.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Of course they are generalizations. Most observations are.

I spent four years there. Then again, there seem to be a couple people who's idea of diversity includes living in Alaska and Utah. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing the well-educated make up the very vocal minority up there. Maybe you should compare yourself to blue states, and then to red ones???

---

Huh? Observations are just that: what you observed. My point is that you've not obseved the majority of anything. Maybe your time in Alaska was spent with a lot of lawyers? [/sarcastic irony]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phUnk

I liked your story about the vacuum cleaner salesman.

---

:)

78910

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

Huh? Observations are just that: what you observed. My point is that you've not obseved the majority of anything. Maybe your time in Alaska was spent with a lot of lawyers? [/sarcastic irony]

---

Heh. :) Or maybe I saw more because I was older -- didn't just grow up in the middle of nowhere and leave. Maybe I spent my time there involved in the political machinery of the state instead of hunting rabbits and ptarmigan? Obviously people make what they will from their own observations and experiences. Certainly if you grow up in a pro-oil, resource extraction culture, it is hard to break away from it.

Your former home, btw, is ruled by lawyers. :D

I don’t usually like to be opinionated and critical about how other countries run things, but I happen to be writing a paper on effects of industry on caribou, and the ANWR issue is a topic I’m somewhat familiar with. I’m not going to pretend that I know all sides of the issue, I certainly have no knowledge of the economic benefits and whatnot... And there are ways that development can be done in the North that has minimal impact on ecology. A couple thoughts:
First: http://www.anwr.org/ is a very one sided website… I imagine that any site corresponding to the issue would be one sided, so at least balance some radically right “facts” with some radically left “facts" http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/ so you can at least get propaganda from both sides…

Second: One of the arguments on the supporting the drilling side say that it can be done with no negative impact, and site the Prudhoe Bay drillings as an example where the caribou herd in that region has increased in size dramatically since the drilling… No development can be done anywhere without a negative impact on something. Hell, you can’t sit in the middle of the woods by yourself without having a negative impact on something. You can minimize impact and therefore justify the means with the end result, but there will be an impact. As for the Prudhoe Bay caribou herd, there are a lot of other reasons the herd size has increased. I’ve heard speculation regarding to improved winters, increased food availability and lower predation risks.

Third: The proposed drilling site is near the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, which is one of (if not the) largest migratory herd in North America. Caribou tend to avoid any area within 4km of an anthropogenic structure, regardless if it is occupied and especially by cows during calving. It is essential that the herd goes to the area for calving to escape predation, and take advantage of the productivity “bloom”. So if drilling were to cause avoidance by cows (likely) then this could have a dramatic effect on the Porcupine herd.

And that’s just one example of the ecological impact. Again, not trying to dictate US policy, but coming from Alberta, where we’ve whored ourselves out to industry and our caribou and grizzlies aren’t doing so hot...

Asfor whoever said that people in the lower 48 shouldn’t dictate what happens in Alaska… I don’t think that’s true. Sure, I’m Albertan, but I’ve always thought of myself as a Canadian first and therefore I do have a vested interest in some of the affairs of other provinces, and I do have an interest in the mining in the Canadian north.
Also, (wow, I am ranting a bit) in my mind ecology is a subject that needs to be international… Given that certain populations of all three subspecies of caribou are listed as “species of special concern” to “endangered”, if the Porcupine herd gets to that point, as a herd that crosses international boarders it is essential that there is some sort of communication and understanding between the US and Canada.. but that's all hypothetical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Heh. :) Or maybe I saw more because I was older -- didn't just grow up in the middle of nowhere and leave. Maybe I spent my time there involved in the political machinery of the state instead of hunting rabbits and ptarmigan? Obviously people make what they will from their own observations and experiences. Certainly if you grow up in a pro-oil, resource extraction culture, it is hard to break away from it.

Your former home, btw, is ruled by lawyers. :D

---

Good points. But let's be honest: the entire world is run by lawyers.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

Good points. But let's be honest: the entire world is run by lawyers.

:)

---

Unfortunately, you are correct. :(

I kinda wish this world was run by Kindergarten teachers or something. I think we'd be much better off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

AKbaconcountry,

Okay, first off -- I lived in Anchorage for several years. Alaskans are nice and friendly people, but politically ignorant or short-sighted for the most part. Much of the state is uneducated. A majority of those are subsidized somehow by the oil industry. People drive trucks there for a reason -- 2WD or 4WD without clearance just won't cut it in many places around the state -- so I don't blame them for that! There is, however, a large population of extreme rednecks -- I'm sure you know what I'm talking about -- and they taint the experiences and perceptions of many visitors (including several I had while I was there).

---

Well, we've come to value what is important to us. No one seems to give a damn about us if it isn't king crab, moose souveniers, or something about our forests, or forests that are in our boundaries but completely controlled by outside interests. We are uniquely situated in this country. Nobody seems to know or care much about us.

I do know about the extreme rednecks, but they exist everywhere. The valley is a troubled area, with perhaps some of the worst litter and land damage of anywhere I've seen in the state. There a lot of people out there with a different mentality from the rest of the state, but they are very few in number compared to most of the developed parts of Alaska.

[/QUOTE]People can call Bush anything they want. You earn people's respect individually, no one can tell you to give it out. Since he hasn't earned virtually anything else in his life, I can't argue if some don't think he's earned "President" either.[/QUOTE]

Well, I just learned to address gentlemen as "Sir" and ladies as "Ma'am," out of respect, regardless of their social or economic position or their relation to myself.

Quote:

---

I saw a lot of people spending their PFDs on wide screen TVs and other consumer crap. It's actually a reason many people without higher education live in Alaska. The oil industry and its progeny allows some free cash.

---

Well, I'm not going to comment on buying big TVs or new tires (in my case), but I know people who count on their PFD to pay for health costs (can't afford insurance, another issue) and to make a down payment on a new home. The cost of living in Alaska is high, even in highly-developed Anchorage. It costs more than Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Diego.

Quote:

---

No one should be able to vote on ANWR without having been there, eh? That means only oil workers, for the most part, should decide its future. What kind of logic is that? I guess since you have likely never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, you should have no opinion on those? Maybe you should quote someone who makes more sense.

---

Well, my Dad doesn't always make perfect sense, and he can be stubborn, but what we was getting at was that unless you understand the terrain and what the area is actually like, you can't fully understand the issue. People imagine Alaska as a dense wilderness, when in reality, as you probably know, there are quite large expanses of desolate and unforgiving tundra and arctic desert, which is much of ANWR's terrain. The area that the actual drilling will take place on makes up only one half of one percent of the total land within the refuge. The area is small, the land is tough and resilient, and the drilling techniques are as unobtrusive as current technology allows. A lot of ANWR's coastal plain was explored without even setting foot on the land, through the use of side-drilling equipment.

I know that people feel that it is the principal of the thing, the fact that it was even considered that "pristine wilderness" (cough, bull----) would be drilled for oil, but the fact is that most of this state is still pristine wilderness, the majority of which cannot be accessed by automobile, plane, or train, and mostly not even by helicopter.

Quote:

---

The EPA is serioulsy underfunded right now. Their compliance measures are pathetic and they face lawsuits from several other groups that are trying to get them to actually enforce the ever-eroding environmental protections in this country. The oil industry's record on the Slope -- and the rest of Alaska -- is not exactly sterling. So forgive me if I have little faith.

---

It must be hard for you to believe that there are people working the refineries who actually care about the ground they are standing on. It is true that many of the workers on the slope are not residents, and therefore have nothing to lose, but a lot of them are Alaskans, who care deeply about their environment. I've met some of them.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...503110333/1001

Quote:

---

You are right. We need to change the way we package consumer products. We need to waste a lot less. I have no desire to become Amish, but I certainly am disgusted by the way we create waste. Anchorage had a terrible recycling program. I kept 10 trash cans all labeled separately on my deck and had to haul all recycling to the collection area off Dowling. No curb-side in AK and they make it as painful as possible. Why a city/state with no sales or income tax can't provide curb-side recycling for over a quarter million people, I can't figure out. Regardless, it all starts by packaging things diffently. Nothing is going to be perfect. Humans will always create impacts, but why not do our best to limit them?

---

My father and I tried for the longest time to recycle soda cans, to no avail. They never picked them up from the end of our driveway. I took the cans I had to the nearest dropoff, as we do with our newspaper, and then we stopped getting both soda and newspaper.

Quote:

---

Finally, this thread was not about "leave Prudhoe Bay" and stop all oil production. It was about "Why ANWR?" I personally believe the benefit is substantially outweighed by the damage. We need change now, not when all the oil has run dry... We need to protect those few places left, not worry about resource extraction. If Alaska is so wealthy from oil, how come Uncle Ted is always clamoring for federal funding/pork and Alaskans get wayyyyy more federal dollars per capita than any other state? At the same time, those generous Alaskans you referred to refuse to pay any state income tax to educate themselves. If that isn't enough, Stevens will keep pulling strings, growing the military up there (which makes little sense) and he'll do everything to drill anywhere he can. Gotta live off the taxpayers of the lower 48. Obviously, it is short-sighted to run an economy based on extraction/destruction of natural resources. Instead of shifting, too many people cling to what they know or are accustomed to. I respect Ted Stevens, he has done alot for Alaska and I've enjoyed meeting him the couple times we've shaken hands and had dinner. However, I would have loved to see someone who still represents Alaskan values but has a more progressive approach (Tony Knowles) get into office to help change the political climate up there into one that has a real future. Instead, Alaska refuses to change and remains fraught with nepotism (Ben Stevens is borderline retarded - if he follows in his Dad's shoes ala Murkowski, Alaska is doomed).

---

A lot of points raised here.

ANWR is not of one those few places left, if you look at the wilderness of Alaska on the whole. As I said above, most of the state is as "pristine" as ANWR, and cannot even be accessed other than on foot, which is impossible in most cases.

As for Senator Stevens, I'm not sure what interests he is pursuing. My father has met with on a few issues, all dealing with communications, and has always left with unanswered questions. He has had much better experiences with Lisa Murkowski and has a very good opinion of her. He isn't impressed with her father, to say the least.

I actually worked for Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman at his set-netting site. He was a state senator at the time. His respect for the waters we fished in, as well as his amazing work-ethic and hospitality, make me confident that he has my best interests in mind.

On income taxes, or lack there of, the property taxes are where the state collects its money from residents, in addition to other minimal taxes. Sales taxes are charged by many municipalities.

The Alaskan economy must stay based on oil, fishing, tourism, air freight, coal, etc, as those are the only industries which readily present themselves. The demand from the lower 48 states and the world also require a focus on those industries. Alaska supplies about 25% of U.S. fuel reserves and is the biggest supplier of Japan's seafood supply. Anchorage is the busiest air freight terminal in the U.S. (which goes against the fact that everyone charges more to ship to AK).
The variety of industries could expand, but most businesses don't want to locate in Alaska, both from the aspect of location in relation to the rest of the U.S. and from the aspect of climate and population.

Quote:

---

Good to hear that you plan to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Good luck with school and your future!

---

Thank you very much! I have a lot to learn about a lot of things, and I appreciate being part of this discussion!

Rusty Nails wrote (Ben Stevens is borderline retarded ) Now that is one thing everyone can agree on here. When I first saw him with his dad when he became the head of the Special Olympics World Games I thought, I didn't realize Ted had a special needs child and was glad he had that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Svengali

"For those that knocked Alaskans and referred to us as "monster truck driving fucktards," That comment came from a life-long Alaskan of nearly 4 decades-(and you read it out of context)--I have seen my share of oil industry benefits and the costs------To me it has not been worth it---I have spent my life traveling all over AK, working in the fishing and construction industry, as well as guiding----If you're as Alaskan as you claim to be AKBC, surely you can see the number of people who live here are not here solely for the "Alaskan" experience. Most of these people would live anywhere as long as they had the same economic situation, and most probably would rather live down south. -----And as for Friendly? (you obviously dont drive much around Anch.)I think that you can find friendly people anywhere you go(and assholes too) so I dont really think that Alaskans have a monopoly on that!!!
As for Economic Importance---Sen Ted Stevens, hands down is the most important economic factor in this state!!!! without his ability to spend federal money , the lights would have gone out in the early eighties
After the federal government, tourism is the largest employer.....

---

Okay, I'm glad I read that out of context, now I'm not so offended as a truck driver, LOL.

I have always thought to myself about all of the people that probably never leave Anchorage proper, and don't have any desire to do so. They are there for various reasons, either because they came with family, grew up there, or moved for work and an adventure.
We can't all share similar outdoor interests, but most people I know and meet have some outdoor hobby they enjoy.

I know there are friendly people everywhere, as I've met them all through Canada, the U.S., and Europe. What I was trying to hint at, however poorly, was that we are a kind of off in our own corner of the continent, and develop a need to meet people from outside, as you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Of course they are generalizations. Most observations are. I spent four years there. Then again, there seem to be a couple people who's idea of diversity includes living in Alaska and Utah. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing the well-educated make up the very vocal minority up there. Maybe you should compare yourself to blue states, and then to red ones???

---

If you were referring to my definition of diversity, I was implying ethnic diversity, as there are people from all around the world culminating in Anchorage. We have Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Filipinos, and many others. I sure didn't see this diversity when I lived in New England or here in Utah.

edited for inflammatory bs

natty, I have lost any respect I might have had for you. I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by random

I don’t usually like to be opinionated and critical about how other countries run things, but I happen to be writing a paper on effects of industry on caribou, and the ANWR issue is a topic I’m somewhat familiar with. I’m not going to pretend that I know all sides of the issue, I certainly have no knowledge of the economic benefits and whatnot... And there are ways that development can be done in the North that has minimal impact on ecology. A couple thoughts:
First: http://www.anwr.org/ is a very one sided website… I imagine that any site corresponding to the issue would be one sided, so at least balance some radically right “facts” with some radically left “facts" http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/ so you can at least get propaganda from both sides…

Second: One of the arguments on the supporting the drilling side say that it can be done with no negative impact, and site the Prudhoe Bay drillings as an example where the caribou herd in that region has increased in size dramatically since the drilling… No development can be done anywhere without a negative impact on something. Hell, you can’t sit in the middle of the woods by yourself without having a negative impact on something. You can minimize impact and therefore justify the means with the end result, but there will be an impact. As for the Prudhoe Bay caribou herd, there are a lot of other reasons the herd size has increased. I’ve heard speculation regarding to improved winters, increased food availability and lower predation risks.

Third: The proposed drilling site is near the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, which is one of (if not the) largest migratory herd in North America. Caribou tend to avoid any area within 4km of an anthropogenic structure, regardless if it is occupied and especially by cows during calving. It is essential that the herd goes to the area for calving to escape predation, and take advantage of the productivity “bloom”. So if drilling were to cause avoidance by cows (likely) then this could have a dramatic effect on the Porcupine herd.

And that’s just one example of the ecological impact. Again, not trying to dictate US policy, but coming from Alberta, where we’ve whored ourselves out to industry and our caribou and grizzlies aren’t doing so hot...

Asfor whoever said that people in the lower 48 shouldn’t dictate what happens in Alaska… I don’t think that’s true. Sure, I’m Albertan, but I’ve always thought of myself as a Canadian first and therefore I do have a vested interest in some of the affairs of other provinces, and I do have an interest in the mining in the Canadian north.
Also, (wow, I am ranting a bit) in my mind ecology is a subject that needs to be international… Given that certain populations of all three subspecies of caribou are listed as “species of special concern” to “endangered”, if the Porcupine herd gets to that point, as a herd that crosses international boarders it is essential that there is some sort of communication and understanding between the US and Canada.. but that's all hypothetical

---

Of course there is going to be impact, that was never disregarded. Improvements in technology have made every effort to minimize impact on tundra and sub-surface layers.

The caribou populations fluxuate due to climate changes and predation, as you clearly illustrated. Both of which were orchestrated by man. The predator populations were manipulated in favor of caribou and moose, and are still being juggled.

I think this might have been one resource of yours: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/ar...ws/whitten.pdf

It's an interesting piece, and it really raises the question of why did the proposed drilling area happen to be where the caribou collect.

This piece by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game states the opposite and says that in general the caribou have not been affected: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/ar...ws/whitten.pdf

The herds mentioned are not ones that I have experience with, but it's useful to know their behavior.
I have been hunting the Mulchatna herd of caribou for six years now. My father has hunted them for 10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKBckntry

We are uniquely situated in this country. Nobody seems to know or care much about us.

I just learned to address gentlemen as "Sir" and ladies as "Ma'am," out of respect, regardless of their social or economic position or their relation to myself.

Well, my Dad doesn't always make perfect sense, and he can be stubborn, but what we was getting at was that unless you understand the terrain and what the area is actually like, you can't fully understand the issue. People imagine Alaska as a dense wilderness, when in reality, as you probably know, there are quite large expanses of desolate and unforgiving tundra and arctic desert, which is much of ANWR's terrain. The area that the actual drilling will take place on makes up only one half of one percent of the total land within the refuge. The area is small, the land is tough and resilient, and the drilling techniques are as unobtrusive as current technology allows. A lot of ANWR's coastal plain was explored without even setting foot on the land, through the use of side-drilling equipment.

I know that people feel that it is the principal of the thing, the fact that it was even considered that "pristine wilderness" (cough, bull----) would be drilled for oil, but the fact is that most of this state is still pristine wilderness, the majority of which cannot be accessed by automobile, plane, or train, and mostly not even by helicopter.

It must be hard for you to believe that there are people working the refineries who actually care about the ground they are standing on. It is true that many of the workers on the slope are not residents, and therefore have nothing to lose, but a lot of them are Alaskans, who care deeply about their environment. I've met some of them.

My father and I tried for the longest time to recycle soda cans, to no avail. They never picked them up from the end of our driveway. I took the cans I had to the nearest dropoff, as we do with our newspaper, and then we stopped getting both soda and newspaper.

On income taxes, or lack there of, the property taxes are where the state collects its money from residents, in addition to other minimal taxes. Sales taxes are charged by many municipalities.

The Alaskan economy must stay based on oil, fishing, tourism, air freight, coal, etc, as those are the only industries which readily present themselves. The demand from the lower 48 states and the world also require a focus on those industries. Alaska supplies about 25% of U.S. fuel reserves and is the biggest supplier of Japan's seafood supply. Anchorage is the busiest air freight terminal in the U.S. (which goes against the fact that everyone charges more to ship to AK). The variety of industries could expand, but most businesses don't want to locate in Alaska, both from the aspect of location in relation to the rest of the U.S. and from the aspect of climate and population.

Thank you very much! I have a lot to learn about a lot of things, and I appreciate being part of this discussion!

---

Okay -- just want to address a couple things.

First, you are not so uniquely situated. I grew up in North Dakota. When was the last time you heard any national press about Nodaks -- one of the only states in the US with NEGATIVE population growth.

Your original point was not sir and ma'am oriented, it was President Bush oriented. If an older gentleman beat up your girlfriend, would you call him "sir?" Some have feelings about this strong regarding his character.

Yes, I've been in the tundra. Most all of us involved in this discussion know what ANWR looks like and are well-versed in drilling technology. No environmental scientist would describe tundra as tough and resilient. It's actually a very fragile ecosystem that many of us want to keep pristine.

I'm sure there are individuals on the slope that care about the land. I know many of them as well. There are TONS of good people who work up there. However, the corporate interests at the macro level are what worry me and the occassional bad apple that spoils it for the bunch.

Glad to know you were doing reduce, reuse, recylce up there.

Property taxes are not very high -- about average if I remember (yes, I paid them on my house). Property taxes are burrough oriented, not state. There is no state sales tax. There is no state income tax. Your STATE runs deficit spending because the people of AK believe they can live off extraction and the federal money provided by lower 48 taxpayers forever.

Your lack of innovation regarding industry is not compelling. I watch South Dakota turn itself into a commercial banking hub through tax incentives, etc... North Dakota has attracted Microsoft and other corporations provided professional, high tech, and good paying jobs. It's a challenge, but eventually Alaska will lose a lot of military spending and oil money -- it's just a matter of time. I'd love to see Alaska looking forward, especially Anchorage. Hell, the climate in ND is a lot worse than S. Alaska!

Overall, you're obviously smart and though we may disagree, I appreciate your perspective. Good luck out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKBckntry

If you were referring to my definition of diversity, I was implying ethnic diversity, as there are people from all around the world culminating in Anchorage. We have Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Filipinos, and many others. I sure didn't see this diversity when I lived in New England or here in Utah.

---

Heh. That was mostly an attempt to talk some smack to Twoplanker who I know and think is a great dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

edited for inflammatory bs

natty, I have lost any respect I might have had for you. I'll leave it at that.

---

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to buy him a beer. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Heh. That was mostly an attempt to talk some smack to Twoplanker who I know and think is a great dude.

---

What?!? You were talking that shit to me? WhyyyIougghtta...

:D

Just wanna say one thing about migratory herds. You put roads and drilling infrastructure in, you change or negatively affect the migratory pattern of said inhabitants.

Have you ever been to the elk refuge in jackson? all you have to do is take a step and you spook those herds.


Think about what the loud drilling, f-150 driving and all that will cause.

Plus, what's this about. Destroying a pristine habitat for all of a month's worth of oil, if that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Your original point was not sir and ma'am oriented, it was President Bush oriented. If an older gentleman beat up your girlfriend, would you call him "sir?" Some have feelings about this strong regarding his character.

---

I mean to address the President as such, a President. It's a title. For me the statement does not imply respect for the person, necessarily, but the position. Call him what you will, it has no bearing on my life.

Quote:

---

Yes, I've been in the tundra. Most all of us involved in this discussion know what ANWR looks like and are well-versed in drilling technology. No environmental scientist would describe tundra as tough and resilient. It's actually a very fragile ecosystem that many of us want to keep pristine.

---

The tundra itself is so varying in consistency that I was not accurate in portraying it. Some of it, like the hummocks and rocky moraines, are tough and resistant to travel and wear, while other spots, like the muskeg and lichen, are easily torn up from foot and vehicle travel.

Vehicles already exist that are capable of crossing the varying surfaces without disturbing them, and snowcover almost eliminates the contact.
Even the Natives contribute to wear and tear on the land by riding their ATVs and snowmobiles to access their subsistence hunts.

I have a hard time accepting what many Natives call their "subsistence" lifestyle; they use outboard motors to power their whaling vessles, from which they use rifles to kill whales; they ride snowmobiles to herd caribou and chase polar bears and seals; and they drive their pickup truck out to the airport or dock to pick up pallots of Coca-Cola and Hamburger Helper. They talk about tradition, yet they want and have every modern convenience that a city-dweller would have. I've been to some of the less remote places and seen this. My Dad and his company have set up entire villages with high-speed internet and satellite TV, so he's seen this first hand. The people I've met have been great, but they are creating a double-standard for themselves. However, I am quite happy that they have refused to be pushed aside in the dealings regarding the opening of ANWR.

Quote:

---

I'm sure there are individuals on the slope that care about the land. I know many of them as well. There are TONS of good people who work up there. However, the corporate interests at the macro level are what worry me and the occassional bad apple that spoils it for the bunch.

---

I've learned a lot in my economic geography class that has made me very aware of the influence of major corporations on our world, beyond the obvious factors. I've seen what they have done to Alaska in the past. This is why I support the opening in the way that the Inupiat have. They understand the risks and have seen the effects firsthand, but they also see the benefits in terms of jobs and federal support.

Quote:

---

Property taxes are not very high -- about average if I remember (yes, I paid them on my house). Property taxes are burrough oriented, not state. There is no state sales tax. There is no state income tax. Your STATE runs deficit spending because the people of AK believe they can live off extraction and the federal money provided by lower 48 taxpayers forever.

---

I understand this what you mean.

At the local level, Alaska is ranked 9th highest for property taxes in the nation by per capita measure, and 7th highest as a percentage of income. On the state level, it's ranked 8th nationally by per capita measure. For federal income versus taxes paid, it was ranked 2nd in 2003. D.C. receives the most federal funding, though it's not a state.
Alaska has one of the highest, if the not the highest, unemployment rate of all of the states.

Quote:

---

Your lack of innovation regarding industry is not compelling. I watch South Dakota turn itself into a commercial banking hub through tax incentives, etc... North Dakota has attracted Microsoft and other corporations provided professional, high tech, and good paying jobs. It's a challenge, but eventually Alaska will lose a lot of military spending and oil money -- it's just a matter of time.

---

North Dakota is also far more centrally located for businesses that operate for regions.
Alaska is situated perfectly for the seafood and air freight industries, in which it is a major player. I can't see Alaska becoming a place of major manufacturing, but it could easily welcome industries that have less dependence on geography and population, such as information services or communications development. My father's company is already a leader in satellite communications for Alaska and Hawaii.

Quote:

---

Overall, you're obviously smart and though we may disagree, I appreciate your perspective. Good luck out there.

---

Thank you very much. I try to back up my thoughts with research and first-hand knowledge.

Good speaking with you. It was a learning experience.

Take care,

My young friend, Alaska has recently been receiving much attention in financial planning publications as an excellent tax haven--many smaller communities (like Homer) are seeing a large influx of senior citizens moving in--not a bad thing per se, but is generally a good indicator of affordable living conditions.
most people in Anchorage who "own" homes dont directly pay their property taxes (as it is the Bank who holds the deed) the taxes are paid indirectly through your mortgage interest---It's when you own your home free and clear that you get a shock in June and August (and wonder why folks keep voting for all those bond measures)
As for cost of living, Groceries cost more in Seattle than Anchorage---although village costs are generally higher due to freight costs---and the "cause they can charge" has an effect on certain goods-----
Rents in Anchorage are also comparable-----Gas is more everywhere else in Ak than Anchorage
Anyhow, one bone of contention amongst many on Capital Hill, has been the COLA (cost of living allowance) that Uncle Ted demands for Alaskan's on the federal payroll ----20% when in reality it's closer to 6%; this will likely be one of the first things that will change when he's gone.
I think majority of Alaskan's like everyone down South to believe how tough it is up here........when in reality, if you live in Anchorage or the Mat-Su life is generally fairly benign.(this is by no means the same for those off the grid, so to speak)....unless you thrive on "the urban cultural amenities ie man-blouse soiree's available down south!!
:D

Sorry for the slight thread drift above. It's long been my opinion, that the whole ANWR debate is not really about Oil, but has more or less been a battle of ideologies---The "Realists" vs. the "Environmentist" ..the reality being that Alaskan oil has pretty high economic/societal costs/effects compared to any other sources.....the motivations of the Big Oil companies is such that they'll take whats given them and wont waste political/public-relations clout on controversial domestic reserves..You saw how much money Exxon spent to restore their image as opposed to actually trying to prevent an accident. it's the little guys who need domestic production to stay in business(and it's these guys that are the friends of politicians)-- If it were only about the Oil, they would only have to turn up the pumps from the North Slope----currently production is held at certain levels to maximize costs-profits-and tax benefits to the consortium which owns the pipeline.
-whether or not we "need" this oil (that "no-one" knows even exists--what were the secret test-well results anyhow?) is irrelevant to the issue as a whole---it's the fact that ANWR has been built up to be the "holy grail" by both sides of this debate......The Pro-Dev. folks see this as removing the "head" of the beast (which prevents a lot of development alot closer to most people's lives) The Environmentists also see the Arctic as the Last Bastion, after which no place will be held sacred-- There is interest in all sorts of resource development in "treasured " public lands such as Yellowstone, Zion, Bryce etc.----Now that the ProDevelopment Administration has received "another mandate" it will be interesting to see how much energy our fellow american's will spend to preserve lands closer to their own homes---
On a side note: ANWR is a federal reserve, meaning that Alaska would only profit from the small tax it receives based on the quantity of oil pumped through the Pipeline---and even this is questionable, since our local politicals have given the Oil companies so many tax incentives to increase development
that I think in reality there is no fiscal gain to state coffers----go figure?
As for Oil Company profits in ANWR---it is projected that if Oil is above 15 $ a Barrel---they profit!!!(we pay)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

natty, I have lost any respect I might have had for you. I'll leave it at that.

---

Oh that hurts JB. Your respect means the world to me.
Hahaha.
edit: another typo. had one too many tonite...

blah blah blah "This message is hidden because natty dread is on your ignore list." blah dee blah dee blah.

no more scathing political diatribe! yay!

Bummer--what fun are my scathing diatribes gonna be now without JB's trite, inarticulate responses?
I must've really hurt your feelings bashing dumbfuck shrub. :D
Not only have I lost your respect, but now I'm being ignored. I'm crushed.

I'm really looking forward to some chained-to-a-tree TR's!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

I'm really looking forward to some chained-to-a-tree TR's!!!!

---

Um, good luck with that. There are few, if any, trees to chain one's self to in the ANWR (at least where the drilling where occur).

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_151.jpg

I appreciate the point that since we use paper products, does not mean we support the logging of old growth forests. I'm sorry I don't know who to credit with that right now. It is thought provoking. My only weak reply to that is that we can't farm oil. And, as of yet vegetable oil sythesis requires as much energy to produce a unit of fuel as the unit produces. There are no heroes there either, if you hate Exxon you will really hate ADM.

My point was, and still is this:

"Let those free of sin throw the first stone."

If I was to look at helo drops as an outsider not having any interest in snowsports at all, I would see an enormous waste of resources in lifting rich guys to the tops of mountains so they can slide down.

In fact, I would see it as wasteful as those who drive vehicles 2X, 3X larger than neccessary.

If we were to support mandating what vehicles we drive based on mpg, what would make the "wastefulness" of blatantly unneccessary helo operation acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

Um, good luck with that. There are few, if any, trees to chain one's self to in the ANWR (at least where the drilling where occur).

[/img]

---

Well self inflicted combustion will have to be only alternative then. :FIREdevil

Yes this vote sucked but don't give up yet. This item still has to show up in the house budget and then the budget has to be approved so speak up now or ANWR is screwed forever. Here's what to do: go to www.house.gov, find your representatives and email them now asking them to remove any house budget provisions that open ANWR to drilling. Also go to www.senate.gov and ask your senators to use the budget approval process or any administrative means possible to prevent drilling.

No matter where you live, it's also a good idea to praise all the Rs who voted to protect ANWR and chastise the Ds who voted to spoil it. Akaka & Inouye of Hawaii and Landrieu of LA are Dems who voted for pillage, so scold them. Chafee-RI, Coleman-RI, Collins-ME, DeWine-OH, McCain-AZ, and Smith-OR are Republicans who voted for a pristine ANWR, so write and thank them for putting values over politics.