Senate votes to allow Alaska wildlife refuge

[Scipio_Africanus]

It's not very fashionable, I know.

[natty dread]

It's not very fashionable, I know.

Nope it wasn't your lack of fashion that outed you, it was your lack of logic in this thread. So I ask again: What does the fact that people use petro products (in skis, helis, whatever) have to do with the pointless (except to shrub and his oil-drenched cronies) drilling in ANWR?

[Rusty Nails]

First you want to make me use less fuel, then you want me to justify my posts on political topics. On top of that you insult me.

Go ahead insult me more. If fact go ahead am PM me and I will give you my telephone number so you can insult me in person. I'm a Republican who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, believe me I can take it.

Remember, hate is not a family value.

I look forward to your PM.

Scip.

PM is in your box. I'll also be in NYC in a few months if you would like me to hurl insults in person. So, other than demonstrating that you might be real instead of someone who's been around here for a while using a BS alias -- in which case I would in fact apologize for that -- it's still funny that your first posts are political, funnier still that their argumentative logic reeks of 8th grade reasoning, and funniest that hate is not a family value, but greed and conspicuous consumption apparently are.

[AKBckntry]

Wow, what a great discussion! It's especially great when you consider that only one or two Alaskans have actually chimed in, and not one single person commenting has ever been there!

Firstly, it's President Bush. I don't care if you hate him or are indifferent to him, or on the seemingly rare chance that you like him, he's the President, with a capital "P." If you were elected President of the United States and I was your worst enemy, I'd still call you President So-And-So.

I can speak from experience as an Alaskan, and I can speak from my father's experience from spending time in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (in case some of you didn't know what the acronym represented, which I'm sure is the case for some of you).

80% of the Alaskan economy comes from the petroleum industry, whether from sub-surface rights, exploration, or actual production and transport. The other biggest factor is the military (our Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and at one time, Navy, bases). Tourism and air freight/transport play supporting roles.

The Permanent Fund Dividend, generated by earnings in the stock market on the fund created by the petroleum industry's payments to Alaska, is a great help to most Alaskans, particularly those in need. More money for the fund can come from increased oil activity, but it is important to understand that the fund also grows as oil supplies decrease and prices increase, so we are not necessarily always looking for more oil.

In my father's experience, he feels that from his time spent in and around the refuge, the animal populations in the refuge at most times of the year are low to nonexistent (it's winter 6-7 months out of the year here). The animals that inhabit the area are migratory. Given that the area slotted for exploration and actual use will be extremely small, it's not likely that animals will be interrupted in their migratory travels. In the case of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, immense thought was put in to making the impact on the animals minimal. The caribou and moose can walk right under the pipe, and where it is close to ground or enters the ground, the caribou tend to collect, as the pipe's heat is a welcome protection from the frigid winter weather. My father believes that no one should be able to make a decision about the future of ANWR without actually setting foot within its boundaries.

As was mentioned above (though quickly disregarded by someone without actual knowledge), the refineries and drill sites operated throughout Alaska are extensively inspected by the EPA and other bodies for compliance with proper operation requirements. I have had teachers that have visited the field in Prudhoe Bay and noted the extremely stringent restrictions on the facilities. A point that one teacher made was that if you drop the stirrer out of your coffee in the 60 mile-per-hour wind, you sure as hell chase it down an pocket it, or you'll be getting chewed out by your boss for costing him a fine.

What I saw mentioned briefly above, and for good reason, is the fact that petroleum goes beyond oil and fuel for planes, trains, and automobiles. The crude coming out of the earth doesn't go directly into use in engines. Petroleum products make up most of what we use every day: plastics in home kitchens/appliances/toys, synthetic clothing, food packaging, and almost every product under the sun.

Sure, we can discontiue using gasoline and traditional diesel in our cars and switch to synthetic lubricants, but we still have the problem of all the other products in our existence that use plastics. We could make all of our clothes out of cotton (which means more crops and less arable land, which is an entirely separate issue), make all of our furniture and homes out of wood or metal, and eat foods that are harvested without internal-combustion engine-powered machinery, but then we'd be back in the 19th century. Very few want that life, if they have even experienced it (I have).

Only about 29% of Alaskan land is privately owned, which means 60% is federally controlled, and 11% is controlled, quite profitably, by Natives.
To think that so many people in the lower 48 states think they know what is best for my state and my fellow Alaskans, is simply appalling. The Feds already have most of the say in what mountains I can climb and how much I pay to park at the trail head, so I'd prefer they stay out of the largest factor in my state's economy.

I invite all of you take off a week this summer and come to Alaska, and visit the refuge. If you stop in Anchorage, be sure to give me a hollar and I'll show you around.

For those that knocked Alaskans and referred to us as "monster truck driving fucktards," and the like, you can come up here and meet us, and you'll find some of the most generous and friendly people, as well as the best hospitality, of anywhere you're likely to travel. We are a diverse people, we are respectful, and we are proud.

These are just my thoughts, although they probably don't matter, as I'm just an Alaskan kid with Alaskan experiences and Alaskan values. I'm presently going to college so I can go to work for Toyota engineering a future hybrid truck or hydrogen powered SUV.

Here's some reading material which will enlighten those who choose to shoot their mouth off without any knowledge of the land, the people, or the facts:

http://www.anwr.org/
http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

More:
"Dollars spent in Colorado from Prudhoe Bay development since 1980: $ 293.2 million."
"Dollars spent in California from Prudhoe Bay development since 1980-1984: $ 3,243.6 million."
"Dollars spent in Utah from Prudhoe Bay development since 1980: $ 166.3 million."
"Dollars spent in Alaska from Prudhoe Bay development since 1980: $ 4.9 billion."

If that doesn't give you an idea of the importance of the oil industry to Alaska then I don't know what will, but this also shows you that everyone depends on Alaskan oil in some way, shape, or form.

Thank you all and have a great day!

P.S. Steamboat Springs from Mar. 12th-18th was kickass! Deep pow on Friday! Thank you Steamboat!

[Al Swearengen]

Those fucking cocksuckers in fucking office fucking with everything and everyone.

I'll fucking see to them.

[The AD]

We could make all of our clothes out of cotton (which means more sheep and less arable land, which is an entirely separate issue)

Damn, I am stupid. Up until now I thought cotton came from a plant.

EDIT: and in response to both AKB and bakers dozen, below, have you been reading any of natty dread's posts? How many times do we have to say we realize we all use petroleum products. The fact we consume oil DOES NOT mean we must support drilling in the ANWR any more than our use of wood and paper products means we should support logging old growth forests.

[bakers_dozen]

AKB good job... I was going to post something along the lines with plastics and other everyday materials but got lazy and didn't feel like typing. You said it nicely

[bakers_dozen]

Damn, I am stupid. Up until now I thought cotton came from a plant.

heh, yeah I guess he meant wool

[Snowbird37]

i am so sick and tired of bush's environmental issues. we should just put his ass in a nuclear waste dump and let him live there for awhile. he does nothing right in this country and is putting us in more danger than good. he is by far the worst prez that we have ever had hands down. i dont care what other people say about him because he truly does suck a lotta D**K. peace out bush out

[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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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!

[SLCFreshies]

AKBcntry, for someone who lived in Alaska, you need to read the ADN more. Also if you have the chance, you should watch the PBS show "Extreme Oil." (More info can be obtained here.) It gives an eye-opening overview of the negative environmental impact of both the Prudhoe Bay operation and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. It gives a slightly different account than what your teachers saw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP hasn't lived up to spill agreement, DEC chief charges

CRITICISM: Ernesta Ballard says recent incidents prove oil company deserves extra scrutiny.

By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News

Published: January 14th, 2004
Last Modified: January 15th, 2004 at 01:25 AM

Oil company BP has failed to meet its "corporate accountability and environmental responsibility objectives" and needs continued elevated scrutiny by federal authorities, Alaska's top pollution regulator has told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ernesta Ballard, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, cited two mishandled North Slope spills in arguing that BP hasn't fully abided by an agreement it struck with the federal government in 1999, when BP pleaded guilty to a criminal pollution violation. That agreement required BP to develop an environmental management system to track and immediately report spills and cooperate better with state regulators.

"Unfortunately, these objectives have not always been met," Ballard wrote in a Dec. 18 letter to an EPA official.

BP failed to promptly report a spill last year, and it quickly and illegally pumped spilled liquids underground in February 2001 without getting permission from state regulators, Ballard said in her letter.

"Failure to follow state oil spill reporting requirements is unacceptable," she wrote.

BP is Alaska's No. 2 oil producer and runs most of the North Slope oil fields, including giant Prudhoe Bay.

Ballard sent the letter to Jeanne Pascal, the EPA's debarment counsel in Seattle. In that role, Pascal oversees cases involving companies that do business with the federal government. Such business can include, for example, fuel contracts between BP refineries and the military, or leases to explore for oil and gas.

EPA officials can prevent or debar a company from further federal contracts if the company commits repeat violations.

BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said his company plans to request a meeting with Ballard to talk about the letter and her concerns. He defended the company's environmental reporting system, calling it "state of the art" if imperfect.

Neither Pascal nor Ballard could be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

A federal judge in February 2000 sentenced London-based BP's Alaska subsidiary, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., to five years probation and ordered it to pay $15.5 million for failing to immediately report hazardous materials dumping by a contractor at the Endicott oil field on the North Slope.

BP has implemented the required environmental management system and it works well, Beaudo said, but he acknowledged that brief delays and procedural misunderstandings can occur as hundreds of BP workers and contractors work on the North Slope's sprawling, frigid oil fields.

"We need to sit down and meet with Ernesta Ballard and really understand the point of the letter," Beaudo said. "Our desire is to have a model working relationship with our regulators."

He said BP long ago provided information to court and EPA officials, including Pascal, on the two spills that Ballard referenced in her letter.

Beaudo also said BP has not applied for an early release from its criminal probation, which is due to expire at the end of January 2005.

BP's Anchorage-based federal probation officer, Mary Frances Barnes, declined to comment.

Ballard wrote that BP mishandled two spills:

• In February 2001, after several "lapses of procedure," a work crew injected hot crude oil and methanol in an effort to thaw a frozen pipeline. Oil spilled onto a lake, and BP tried to dispose of the spilled fluids by injecting them underground without getting state approval. The letter refers to the disposal as "destroying evidence." The state and BP ultimately settled the case with a civil penalty of $675,000.

• Last May, a BP contractor discovered a spill of oily water onto tundra from a Prudhoe Bay pipeline and reported it to field operators, but it took 19 hours and 15 minutes for DEC to be informed of the 6,000-gallon spill. Regulators expect oil companies to report such spills within 30 minutes, and BP's environmental management system failed in this case, Ballard wrote.

The state still hasn't imposed any penalty for the May 2003 spill, but BP expects one.

Beaudo said it's a constant battle to make sure everyone working on the Slope knows the importance of prompt spill reporting. He acknowledged some confusion and misunderstandings of regulatory requirements in the two spills.

BP didn't try to hide anything, and state regulators praised BP's cleanup in both cases, Beaudo said.

Larry Dietrick, DEC's director of spill prevention and response, said Ballard's letter wasn't intended to get BP into deeper trouble. Rather, it was to emphasize to federal officials a continuing need for prompt, and improved, spill reporting compliance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE from the PBS website:

Maintaining Alaska's environment, including wildlife, is a concern to many. In the era of global oil, big oil companies have a vested interest in protecting their reputation for safety and environmental awareness. To this end, BP and the rest of the Alyeska companies have taken extensive measures to ensure that an oil spill doesn't happen along their pipeline. Nonetheless, on several occasions BP has been forced to conduct extensive public relations damage control relating to its operations in Alaska. In 2000, BP pleaded guilty to one felony count for failing to immediately report the dumping of hazardous materials by one of its contractors at the Endicott field; the guilty plea resulted in a fine of $500,000, five years of probation, and the required implementation of a national environmental compliance system. (At the time, the compliance system had a projected cost of $15 million, and BP reports that it has cost more than $40 million to date.) The company also agreed to a $6.5 million civil penalty. Though BP sought to clean up its act in the wake of the ruling, in 2002 the company was accused of negligence after one of its North Slope wells exploded, seriously injuring a worker. Most recently, in August, 2004 the EPA called for an expanded probe into BP's Alaska operations after the company was accused of mishandling oil spills in Prudhoe Bay, covering up corrosion, and intimidating employees who raised safety concerns.

If BP is found to be in violation of its probation, the oil giant could face further penalties and be forced to conduct yet another expensive campaign to protect its public image. The future of BP's pipeline, however, appears to be somewhat less controversial: in 2004 the Department of the Interior renewed the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline's federal right-of-way leases for another 30 years.

[natty dread]

and in response to both AKB and bakers dozen, below, have you been reading any of natty dread's posts? How many times do we have to say we realize we all use petroleum products. The fact we consume oil DOES NOT mean we must support drilling in the ANWR any more than our use of wood and paper products means we should support logging old growth forests.

Eggzackly! How many times do I need to repeat this until pro-drilling people respond or acknowledge this? This is obviously a point these guys are either too obtuse to understand or are just reluctant to address.

BTW AKB, I'll call our fuckwad "P"resident whatever I care to call him. To me, he is shrub, village idiot, killer of 1,500 American soldiers over non-existent WMDs, responsible for gaping holes in our homeland security, the guy who takes away funding from our first responders, pseudo-cowboy, failed businessman, daddy got me into Yale/Harvard and kept me out of Nam, liar, incompetent piece of shit. Does that bother you, make you uncomfortable, make you think I'm unpatriotic? Fine.
I respect the person, not the title.
edit: typos

[AKBckntry]

Damn, I am stupid. Up until now I thought cotton came from a plant.

EDIT: and in response to both AKB and bakers dozen, below, have you been reading any of natty dread's posts? How many times do we have to say we realize we all use petroleum products. The fact we consume oil DOES NOT mean we must support drilling in the ANWR any more than our use of wood and paper products means we should support logging old growth forests.

Sorry about that, I had "People are sheep" stuck in my head, LOL.

Again, drilling in the refuge, if it even happens, is a temporary, partial, and local solution to a global problem. The United States is the leading consumer of petroleum products, and all products for that matter, so we must look upon ourselves to be responsible for finding new resources. While drilling in ANWR won't solve the problem of the finite supply of oil, which cannot be solved, it will alleviate some of the reliance on foreign oil, while bringing jobs and money to state which has been spending on a defecit for sometime now.
Defecit spending is one of my gripes with Republican politicians in general, but I still see more eye-to-eye with Republicans than I do with Democrats.

The effects on ANWR WILL be MINIMIZED. If anyone so much as steps out of line with the Natives watching, there will be Hell (well, most-likely huge Native corporations) to pay.

[AKBckntry]

AKB good job... I was going to post something along the lines with plastics and other everyday materials but got lazy and didn't feel like typing. You said it nicely

Thank you kindly, sir.

[Twoplanker]

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.

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.

Those are ignorant over generalizations, for the most part. But, then again, you did live in Anchorage for a few years.

Incidentally, the number of college-educated Alaskans exceeds the national average by as much as 10% (depending on what degree you are looking at).

[Rusty Nails]

[QUOTE=AKBckntry]

While drilling in ANWR won't solve the problem of the finite supply of oil, which cannot be solved, it will alleviate some of the reliance on foreign oil, while bringing jobs and money to state which has been spending on a defecit for sometime now.
Defecit spending is one of my gripes with Republican politicians in general, but I still see more eye-to-eye with Republicans than I do with Democrats.

QUOTE]

Your politically backwards state has deficit spending because all the generous and hospitable people you referred to earlier refuse to pay any state taxes. So, their greed is THE ONLY reason there is deficit spending in AK.

[Rusty Nails]

BTW, I grew up in a republican home and was a republican during college, so there's hope for you yet.

[Twoplanker]

Wow, what a great discussion! It's especially great when you consider that only one or two Alaskans have actually chimed in, and not one single person commenting has ever been there!

Not that it matters, but there may be more Alaskans posting here than you know about. I've been posting in this thread, and I'm a native (little 'n') Alaskan. I lived in the interior for almost two decades and lived almost entirely off the land of half of that time.

[phUnk]

I lived in the interior for almost two decades and lived almost entirely off the land of half of that time.

I liked your story about the vacuum cleaner salesman.

[Rusty Nails]

Those are ignorant over generalizations, for the most part. But, then again, you did live in Anchorage for a few years.

Incidentally, the number of college-educated Alaskans exceeds the national average by as much as 10% (depending on what degree you are looking at).

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.

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???

[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.....

[Twoplanker]

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.

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]

[Twoplanker]

I liked your story about the vacuum cleaner salesman.

78910

[Rusty Nails]

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.

[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