Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska ANWR drilling

I live in Alaska because of the vast wilderness. To me, being able to walk or paddle, hunt or fish for days or weeks and not see another human being is worth more than a few years of oil.

I think the mountain men would feel the same.

I don't buy the argument that only 2000 acres would be affected. There'd be pipelines and far more helicopters and airplanes.

I don't want to be camping on an ANWR night and see lights from an oil field. Check out the satellite photos of the lights of Prudhoe at night.

If I wanted to see wilderness developed for maximum profit I'd live in the Lower 48. That used to be wilderness too.

I have been here in times of "No Oil" and "Oil". "Oil is better! Do you remember paying state income taxes on your outboard motor and your snowmachine? That really sucked! The biggest problem here is that the politicians spend a lot more than what is coming in. Folks get used to the benefits of State spending and the demand it as a "right". We all need less government. If we do get a chance to develop our own resources, We just need to keep the politicians from spending/wasting it all! We can let "those Sand Folks" eat their sand. With the recent developments in directional drilling, the drill site footprints will be smaller and further apart. Like Governor Hickle said Our oil discoveries are in just the right place. It's cold and practically uninhabited. We really don't hurt anyone if there is a problem. Look at all the money that comes into the NSB. Given a choice, I prefer "Oil".

I live in Alaska because of the vast wilderness. To me, being able to walk or paddle, hunt or fish for days or weeks and not see another human being is worth more than a few years of oil. I think the mountain men would feel the same.

I don't buy the argument that only 2000 acres would be affected. There'd be pipelines and far more helicopters and airplanes.

I don't want to be camping on an ANWR night and see lights from an oil field. Check out the satellite photos of the lights of Prudhoe at night.

If I wanted to see wilderness developed for maximum profit I'd live in the Lower 48. That used to be wilderness too.

Buck-The more that I think about your post, the more upset I get. It is quite obvious that you have never even been to that part of Alaska. Much less flown into or even over that area. I have. I have hunted in March, along the Canning River South to the mountains. We went for Sheep on a registration hunt in March. That was before Point Thomson was discovered. We left from Dead Hoarse and traveled East on an Ice Road to the Canning River and then South. You wouldn't like us--we rode those noisy, stinky snowmachines. I have to admit that for two weeks-we did not see or hear any manmade sounds except ours. I see from your website that you used a stinky noisy airplane to get to your drop off/put-in. So I guess that when you want to, it's OK for you to disturb someone else's peace and quiet. This is a huge place and you can find a lot of room to go and have your Wilderness Experience". I don't know if you would intentionally bar the folks at Kaktovik the opportunity to use their boats, wheelers or snowmachines or even use their lights for fear of disturbing your wilderness. You just might see the reflection from their village or hear their mode of transportation. Put on your REI approved gear, throw your canoe up and hike another 100 miles South. Like others have said, the pipelines will go straight West and then south in the existing pipeline. Now the only thing that you might bump into is the site at Point Thomson. I suppose that even seeing that would disturb you. What I am trying to tell you is "Get your facts" before you go and show your true colors about locking up the State so that you Can have that Wilderness Experience" you crave. Oh, leave your SPOT at home. That way you will not hear or see the helicopter come and rescue you when a disaster happens. I'm still not sure that traveling alone is a real good idea either.
Favor Center

You mean you couldn't get past f-n tree huggin hypocrite?

Most Alaskans are beyond clueless as to how they have benefitted from the oil industry. I'm not just talking about fuel to stay warm, power to transport them around the state and synthetic clothing. I'm talking about the infrastructure around the state that would not exist without the billions in tax revenue over the past 40 years not to mention the majority of government jobs that wouldn't exist without the $ from oil.

Most Alaskans are beyond clueless as to how they have benefitted from the oil industry. I'm not just talking about fuel to stay warm, power to transport them around the state and synthetic clothing. I'm talking about the infrastructure around the state that would not exist without the billions in tax revenue over the past 40 years not to mention the majority of government jobs that wouldn't exist without the $ from oil.

Yeah, that is about it.

I think every state should set aside an area equal to ANWR for wilderness, that and ban any 'urban' areas larger than"area 1002", (the area proposed for potential development in ANWR).

* the states of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland would all, of course, be returned to wilderness. I wouldn't have any problem with that.