[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


In a message dated 00-12-30 10:44:54 EST, you write:

<< No Way!
 We're going to get the oil from somewhere.  No matter where you do it there
 will be damage.  We live on one earth.  Alaska is as foreign to me as the
 Middle East.  But I'll bet the Americans drill "cleaner" than the arabs.
 Besides, every time the Sierra club gets one of these stupid things through,
 I have one less place to enjoy nature because my 4x4 or my ATV aren't
 allowed to pass.
 Bush is probably our best hope for balanced equal access to the environment. 

I consider it shortsighted to make all of these efforts to eliminate natural 
resource utilization in this country.  I also agree with Chris; we have the 
technology to do it with the least long term, narrow range damage of any 
nation on Earth!  In Robert's defense, he is sincere in wanting to protect 
ecosystems & I think we can & can still develop most of our natural 
resources.  Most all of the development in the Arctic has to be done in the 
winter when the ground is firmly frozen & also when there is minimum impact 
on the environment.  Dang it, most resource development can be done with low 
impact; what really does permanent &, most of the time it seems, irreparable 
damage, is human habitation and all that goes with us moving in, changing 
things to our liking & living in a particular place.  BTW, I have been to the 
"Grand Canyon of the North"  as some call it; it's wild & beautiful, so let's 
develop it prudently.  When I was there on a hunting/fishing trip in the 
early 90's, the natives there were allowed one caribou per person per day all 
year long for subsistence living!  From everything I saw & heard, they 
utilized every bit of each animal they harvested, too.  And the herds were 
holding at historic levels.
Bruce Scott
Meridian, Idaho