Duck Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Bush Aministration has just announced approval of oil and natural gas exploratory drilling on 750,000 acres of prime goose nesting grounds in Alaska. Does that bother you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
This is an Associated Press report seen on the MSNBC news site under " Environment ". BLM recommended and Interior Secretary Gale Norton expected to sign off next week. Probably on Ducks Unlimited site as they are one of many environmental against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Here is the story from Alaska. Of course this is not exactly a done deal yet but I happen to be one of those guys that believes we have the technology to allow oil production and nature to coexist, and that unless we can cut our dependence on foriegn oil ( and the production of hydrogen as a fuel source will take tons of fossil fuel so maybe that isn't the answer) We will be at the mercy of OPEC which I have never thought was a great place to be. Sorry the link went away so I removed it. Read on though.

Mac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
You are referring to the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) in the Northeast corner of Alaska? First of all, the oil will be drilled on the coastal plain, so unless you hunt geese off shore in freezing arctic waters I think you will be ok. The ANWR province will yield up to 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. According to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources that 1.5 million barrels, coupled with the Interior Departments estimate on future Gulf of Mexico production, could replace the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iraq combined. I, for one, think that being less reliant on other countries for our energy sources is a good thing. Besides, how many people do you think goose hunt that area?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,681 Posts
the above link is dead it appears...whether or not people hunt in the aformentioned area is beside the point, must we truly tap into everything just because we can? as far as lessening our reliance on foreign countries for oil, I agree, but we should find alternatives. Bio-diesel and ethanol are good alternatives that will take more time to be put into widespread use. for the meantime, let's strive to save the last beautiful places we have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Remember this is not a hunting ground. This is a breeding ground. Which of course is much more sensitive to human incursion. I think Bush is so tied to Big Oil that he is not credible in these cases. If you are interested in this subject, check and see what he is allowing in Wyoming,Colorado etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
same argument was used when the Alaska oil pipeline was proposed:
1. cant be good for animal populations
2.nature and the pipeline can't coexist etc...

Now, we find high populations of animals in the pipeline area and specific populations have grown. More feeding area in areas they keep thawed for the pipeline etc.

Big oil-Bush connection? maybe, but it's not just Bush who proposes this. remember, presidents do not make laws...lawmakers do.
If you read carefully, the land was already set aside as a petroleum preserve. And they plan to do the work in winter when the animals are not there.

Finding a way to reduce foreign dependence=priceless
Finding a way to do it and keep bird populations the same=responsible management
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
I'm surprised Haliburtons name hasn't popped up yet which it does everytime someone mentions Bush and Big Oil ( the word BIG in conjunction with any industry is leftist code for Evil by the way) in the same sentence. I, for one, would rather use my own resources, provided of course they are used in a responsible way, then rely on the blackmail of others and be called evil in the bargain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Remember that there is a reason why we don't have as many glory duck days as we did in the past. The reason is people. More people equals more cars equals more oil and less land for breeding ducks. Leave the Alaska ducks alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,681 Posts
To true Hevi-Shot :salude: wish I could have thought of that....but i didn't. I'll be the first to admit, that I don't have solutions for our problems, but I would be happy to see us steer away from such a reliance on fossil fuels. Fact is, everyting we burn...be it oil or wood is going to cause some harm like it or not. We (and by we I mean the engineers, chemists, and some of thsoe yahoos we elected to congress) should work on viable alternatives. Maybe our grandbabies can hunt with us too. ethanol, hemp, and even hydrogen are up and coming possibilities, now we just have to get 'em to work to pull big loads. thats it for me for now....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts

Looks like a frozen wasteland to me. I just love spending 2.25 a gallon on gasoline!! :thumbsdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
I still dont think it will make oil prices drop, I'll beleive that when I see it, they'll just keep them high and get realy realy realy realy rich, somebody's getting rich off you payin 2.25 for gas arn't you happy about it, you should thank bush inc. and rest of his kind for the oportunity to buy gas, it's gonna be a long four years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
I don't understand where you think Bush is getting rich off of oil prices. Show me some proof, don't you think if his bank account was getting bigger from this the media would be all over it? Secondly, have you ever taken an economics course? Oil prices were actually higher in the 80's when adjusted for inflation. Just because the price of gas is higher nominally, doesn't mean that it is higher relative to any other good or service now-a-days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Come on, you should do your home work and you will see that the knuckle head we call a pres. is wrapped up in oil to no end. His grand daddy, daddy and haliburton are all big players in the oil industry. He himself failed in the oil industry along with every other thing he ventured in. If it were not for family wealth that man would be on welfare. He is in no way a bright man.I thought the first 4 years were long, but damn this is going to be painfully long. Not to mention the man bombs Iraq for what? then says he wants to spread democracy. Lets see here, kill 100s of thousands of people, distroy their counrty and then have the american tax payer pay to rebuild it while young americans die doing so......what a hero......f-ing idot is what that man is.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Well since no one has done there home work show us your proof that the pres is the reason behind all the prices. What do you think we should do just sit back and not do any thing while those other countrys threaten us with terrorism. Finaly we have a pres that is not sitting on his ass and doing some thing about it. And if the militarys hands were not tied over there it would be alot closer to the job being done. Like my drill sargent told us "We want you to do the most immoral job of killing but with all the morals other countrys dont have to follow". I dont have the answers but think the pres and his associates are behind this is just people so wrapped up in left and right politics that they are not willing to look at from any other way
Kurt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Show me where our president is getting wealthy off of the current oil situation. Also, if you read the New York Times yesterday you would see that there were weapons of mass destruction after all, including nuclear, that were looted by what they think was a professional job following the initial invasion on Iraq. The purpose of the story was to make the Bush Administration look stupid for not guarding these 4 or 5 facilities but in the process OOPS! they accidentally admitted that American, British and any other credible intelligence agency was right after all...there WERE weapons of mass destruction and are now probably located in either Syria or Iran. This was the whole premise for why you disagreed with us being there, now what do you have to say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Let's set aside the fact that the portion of ANWR we are arguing over was set aside by congress in the 60's for oil drilling and exploration. Just to help you get some perspective, if the ANWR area was a tennis court, the portion set aside would be the size of a newspaper.
For those who are worried about the environmental impact of this, let not your hearts be troubled. The Central Arctic caribou herd near the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay have grown an average of 8.5% a year. As for the geese, section 1002 (the portion that will be drilled upon) is nothing more than an iced over dirt field, frozen wasteland if you will. While ANWR in general is prime breeding habitat, section 1002 specifically is not.
Now if we can accomplish some energy independance and not harm the environment at the same time, I call that a victory for "both" sides. :salude:
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top