Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 230

Thread: Obama blocks ANWR development

  1. #1

    Default Obama blocks ANWR development

    What are your thoughts? How will this affect our economy? Will it have any impact on our hunting rights in ANWR? Anybody know any specifics?

    http://www.adn.com/article/20150125/...lan-block-anwr

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ttle-with-gop/

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    My understanding is that such a designation would require congressional approval, and given the balance of the senate, I don't see that as very likely. Unless I'm missing something, this proposal seems dead on arrival.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    This issue was on the front page of my local newspaper in Vancouver, WA! (The Columbian)

    At first glance, I would agree with Brian. If the Prez is looking for Congress to approve this, it's life span will be remarkably short. Sorta like asking a completely Democratic Congress to approve drilling on the Arctic NWR. Ain't gonna happen.

    But there may be more to the proposal than meets the eye. The outrage from the AK Congressional delegation (Don, Dan, Lisa) has me thinking there is more to it than just a Congressional request to create a wilderness area. They have to know that it's dead on arrival. If so, why all the outrage? Could be something more, but I'm not sure what.

  4. #4
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    The loser in chief will do it via executive order, legal or not.

  5. #5
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Correct Tim. Congressional constraints no longer bother him.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Here is more information:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is releasing their Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Arctic NWR. CCP's are required by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (1997), so USFWS is doing exactly what Congress asked them to do.

    The link is here: http://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/

    A quick summary: USFWS has decided they will management Arctic NWR in a manner similar to a National Wilderness area for the next 15-20 years. They have prepared a final management plan and an EIS to support their decision. Those actions can be taken without Congressional action, per the Refuge Improvement Act.

    However, USFWS has also said that the protections of "wilderness designation" would ensure continuation of the management plan beyond the 15-20 year planning horizon. Only Congress can designate wilderness. So the USFWS asked the Secretary of the Interior (Sally) to ask the Prez to recommend that Congress designate Arctic NWR as wilderness. So he is going to do that. In the meantime, USFWS will manage Arctic NWR as a wilderness area, as if it had that designation, for the next 15-20 years. It's likely that the prospect of managing the refuge as wilderness for another 15-20 years is giving the AK delegation heartburn.

    I would note that managing Arctic NWR as a wilderness area is very similar to how it has been managed for decades. Not sure what would change with this new conservation plan, but a close reading of the EIS would likely provide the answer. But this plan would foreclose opportunities for resource extraction that might otherwise be available. Thus the outcry from the politicians. And likely, plenty of folks on this BB.

  7. #7
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    No way in hell the senate or the house approves this. It's DOA. On the other hand, I believe the republicans control enough of the house and would "only" need about 12 democrat senators to vote for opening ANWR. Then they could send forth a veto proof bill that the president couldn't stop.

    Probably not happening, but more likely than the house and senate changing it to a wilderness.

  8. #8
    Member GrassLakeRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Grass Lake Michigan
    Posts
    1,978

    Default

    The department of the interior will start putting the protection into motion asap. Whether or not it stays on is something different but anwr is protected as of now.
    "Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure science"

    Edwin Hubble

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Arctic NWR has always been protected. However, the level of protection may go up.

    USFWS still needs to complete the Record of Decision, which outlines exactly what they are going to do. You can expect something close to the final preferred alternative. If anyone wants to form a legal challenge they need to challenge the Record of Decision. That's the final agency action that would get litigated. It would not surprise me if the State decides to seriously consider it.

  10. #10
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Alaska should not drill anymore oil untill they can refine it all in state and make the real profit. Alaska should also get first crack at all the new jobs.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  11. #11
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Alaska should not drill anymore oil untill they can refine it all in state and make the real profit. Alaska should also get first crack at all the new jobs.
    Just an FYI for you and others Will.
    I know a lot of people who work on the slope who were Alaskan residents some were born and raised here and lived here over 40+ years.
    Once they get a slope job their wife demands they move out of state so they do to save their marriage.
    Usually so the wife can be closer to family members or enjoy a warmer climate.
    I can name over a dozen people off the top of my head who have done this.
    My point is that just because you hire Alaskans for these kinds of jobs it doesn't mean they will remain so post hire.
    It's a good thought to hire Alaskans but not the easiest thing to accomplish.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  12. #12
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    so USFWS is doing exactly what Congress asked them to do
    Coho's comments show how long these hidden agendas have been buried in one form of legislation or another. Like "sleeper cells", they lay dormant, waiting for their opportunity to strike and wreak havoc with our economy. It wasn't the current congress that asked the USFWS to do this. Some long past democrat controlled one, slipped a few choice words into a bill that appeared innocuous at the time, and then they just sat back and waited.

    Often times, an agency is merely given a little bit of "discretion" about how to "manage" this or that. Under conservative leadership, not much "discretion" is used, and things go along normally. But, under radical liberal leadership, old legislative language gets re-interpreted to mean whatever that regime wants it to mean. By then it's too late, because it's become part of that agency's mission statement, and the current congress can't change that, by simply refusing to vote for it. It no longer needs to be designated a wilderness, because, in every practical way except the formal name, it already is.

    The only solution is to continuously defeat these environmental zealots at every election for a sustained period of time, and then, once a large enough majority is assembled, defund or abolish these rogue agencies. Then write very strict, unambiguous legislation that can weather the new liberal assaults that will begin immediately to weaken it. Otherwise we will die a political and economic death from a thousand small cuts. The power to "manage" ANWR as a wilderness, didn't just happen during BHO's administration, and it's going to take a prolonged effort to pull it out by the roots.

    "Eternal vigilance, is the price of Liberty."
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  13. #13
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluNosDav View Post
    Otherwise we will die a political and economic death from a thousand small cuts.
    Naw. Political economics isn't going to kill us. We're going to die from habitat destruction, of our own doing, because too many of us are myopic, ignorant, and greedy.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  14. #14
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Its my understanding that today we had enough oil products that anyone in the world wanting them could buy them
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    BluNos - If it would help, here is a summary of what I mentioned in my previous post. Take note of the last bullet. This is the requirement for a management plan for each National Wildlife Refuge (Comprehensive Conservation Plan). The plan rolled out earlier this week is the management plan for Arctic NWR.

    I did not make this up. It's taken directly from the USFWS website.

    I would note that the legislation was signed by Prez Clinton in 1997. And, as I recall, it was passed by a Republican House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate. Don Young (R-AK) was/is a strong supporter of this legislation since it mandated that wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., fishing/hunting) was a high priority use of NWR's. But I also agree that he's probably not happy with this specific plan.

    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
    Public Law 105-57



    "For almost a century, the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System had been managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under a variety of laws without an "Organic Act" or comprehensive legislation spelling out how it ought to be managed and used by the public.

    On October 9, 1997, President Clinton signed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57 (text) (PDF)). The Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 in a manner that provides an “Organic Act” for the Refuge System.

    It was passed to ensure that the Refuge System is managed as a national system of related lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources.

    The only system of Federal lands devoted specifically to wildlife, the National Wildlife Refuge System is a network of diverse and strategically located habitats. More than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas across the United States teem with millions of migratory birds, serve as havens for hundreds of endangered species, and host an enormous variety of other plants and animals. Over 39 million people visit units of the National Wildlife Refuge System each year to enjoy a wide range of wildlife related recreational opportunities.

    The passage of this Act gave guidance to the Secretary of the Interior for the overall management of the Refuge System. The Act's main components include:

    • a strong and singular wildlife conservation Mission for the Refuge System;
    • a requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the Refuge System;
    • a new process for determining compatible uses on refuges;
    • a recognition that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System;
    • that these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System; and
    • a requirement for preparing a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge."

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    KP/NE
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Naw. Political economics isn't going to kill us. We're going to die from habitat destruction, of our own doing, because too many of us are myopic, ignorant, and greedy.
    Interesting thought that the two forms of "death" are mutually exclusive. Would looking at it that way be myopic????

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default we will never learn..

    I am no fan of the arabs, having lived there twice. But they did finally learn 50 yrs or so ago that to export raw materials (oil) was to export the jobs also. So now they export finished products like you suggest and help keep the population working and somewhat content.

    We need to:

    Refine our oil and ship out gasoline, diesel, and other finished products as you suggest. We can use our natural gas for fuel to power the refineries. Use the residue products to make asphalt for more paved roads.

    Develop an industry to separate our natural gas into methane fuel and the heavier components. Use the methane for fuel and make the other components into olefins and eventually plastics etc.

    Refine the zinc ore we now export.

    Process the fish caught off our shores.

    Turn out lumber into more finished products instead of shipping out logs.

    Do all this utilizing as much Alaska labor as possible. As the job market expands, more of our kids will stay here and skilled talent will move in to take the jobs created. Rural residents can move in also to take good year round high paying jobs and get off the govt. handouts and assistance.

    Some selfish people will pisss and moan that this will ruin Alaska. It may for them - but it will be good for the majority of Alaskans and United States we are a part of.


    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Alaska should not drill anymore oil untill they can refine it all in state and make the real profit. Alaska should also get first crack at all the new jobs.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  18. #18
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Its my understanding that today we had enough oil products that anyone in the world wanting them could buy them
    This kind of attitude only results in more dependence on foreign oil, and all the entanglements that that brings with it. It's not a question of being able to purchase oil from areas like the Middle-East. Energy independence is our most critical national security issue, as well as an economic one. I often wonder what folks opinion would be, given the choice between getting involved in another M-E war, (and there will always be another war in that area) and developing ANWR? Wouldn't it be nice, if the next time some Arab tyrant or Muslim Jihadist threatens to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, instead of sending in troops or the 6th Fleet, we simply say, "No Thanks, we're bringing more drilling rigs on-line in Alaska, and ND, and TX, and WY, etc."

    If China needs the oil, they can go try to make peace in the sandbox. Or better yet, we'll sell them American oil, and help our balance of trade.
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  19. #19
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Naw. Political economics isn't going to kill us. We're going to die from habitat destruction, of our own doing, because too many of us are myopic, ignorant, and greedy.
    Since we started "developing" the Western Hemisphere over 500 years ago, almost a BILLION more people live here now, and live better, than before. Pre-Columbus life in the America's was: hard, brutish, and short. It's a fantasy that, while the buffalo roamed, everyone lived blissfully in a balance with nature. And despite all of the trees that we cut down, prairies that we plowed, roads that we paved, and concrete that we poured, none of that "habitat destruction" has killed us. Just the opposite, a BILLION more human beings are thriving!

    But, for the radical environmentalists, the sky is always falling.
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  20. #20
    Member bobmikk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I am no fan of the arabs, having lived there twice. But they did finally learn 50 yrs or so ago that to export raw materials (oil) was to export the jobs also. So now they export finished products like you suggest and help keep the population working and somewhat content.

    We need to:

    Refine our oil and ship out gasoline, diesel, and other finished products as you suggest. We can use our natural gas for fuel to power the refineries. Use the residue products to make asphalt for more paved roads.

    Develop an industry to separate our natural gas into methane fuel and the heavier components. Use the methane for fuel and make the other components into olefins and eventually plastics etc.

    Refine the zinc ore we now export.

    Process the fish caught off our shores.

    Turn out lumber into more finished products instead of shipping out logs.

    Do all this utilizing as much Alaska labor as possible. As the job market expands, more of our kids will stay here and skilled talent will move in to take the jobs created. Rural residents can move in also to take good year round high paying jobs and get off the govt. handouts and assistance.

    Some selfish people will pisss and moan that this will ruin Alaska. It may for them - but it will be good for the majority of Alaskans and United States we are a part of.
    You make some great points... especially regarding the continuation of actual manufacturing jobs when the raw materials are harvested locally there. Make the final products! Maine lets the Canadian's come in and cut logs and haul them back to Canada, where they are cut into lumber and sold back to the US. To me, that just does not sit well, and if you were to get into a discussion with a Mainer, they would give you a piece of their mind on this matter. Plenty of opportunities to create good paying jobs in this country.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •