Environmental groups and wildlife groups in Alaska (Wrangell: home, to buy)

[Sweden]

Wow, I'm amazed at how many replies this got. Thank you everyone for your help and comments - those links (all of them) have kept me busy all yesterday and today.
And thanks for the input on what you think about different groups, their work and agendas. Forgot to mention that in the OP, but that is also what I need to know.
So... Please post what you think (or what the majority of the people thinks if there is a widely spread opinion) about anything relating to the groups and their work and what ever environmental and wildlife problems there might be in (especially) Alaska. Good or bad.

Among other things, on akck's link about SEACC I found something about Kensington mine wanting to dump toxic tailings (Kensington Mine — Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (http://www.seacc.org/issues/mining/kensington-mine - broken link) ; Tailings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in a lake in the Tongass National Forest.
My question (I guess) is why they chose a lake to dump it in - why not elsewhere? (On wikipedia there's a little note on "back in the days"- Australia and how dumping it on land caused problems as well, but still...)
Are there any laws about mines having to clean up the toxic waste, or can they just dump it as it is if they get a permit to do so? (Clumsy phrasing, but I hope you understand it)

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

We might note too that the significance is the difference between those who view themselves and their legacy as transient, and those who do not. I have no doubt that my grandchildren's children will live in Alaska; hence what I do to Alaska is important.

For those who live in Texas or Vermont or Montana, and who see no future that relates to them in Alaska, nothing here is important unless it converts to instant pleasure or dollar bills.

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

You are in denial.

The fact that global warming is happening is now far beyond any doubt. It is. The cause of it of course can't be pinned down without question... but we have dozens of scientist spending millions of dollars on research here in Barrow, and near as I can tell every single one of them fully believes that human activities are the cause for accelleration of the the warming. That is, it has been in a cycle for hundreds of thousands of years, and has now broken out of that cycle and is warmer and has changed faster than what has been the norm. And the reason for that is human activity.

Of course lots of bone heads deny that, but they are bone heads!

The fact that "dozens" of science guys are making big bucks to sell man as the cause of a natural event, and thousands of their kind claim it isn't clearly evades your grasp as the norm.

The fact that our boats get started up on the North Slope later each year due to ice remaining and freezing is sooner over the last few years kinda pops your bubble.

So who's fault was the end of the last "Ice Age"... Oh wait, that is still in progress! Part of that 25,000 year plan...

The fact that man feels his existance is threatened because he can't control weather is an arrogrance issue, not one that bothers the Planet. When it is ready, we will all go the way of the Dodo. Enjoy your time here, be more afraid of the guys trying to get to heaven by setting off a Nike in the name of their god.

Go get a cup of coffee and watch the sun rise, that is the real world.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by starlite9

The fact that "dozens" of science guys are making big bucks to sell man as the cause of a natural event, and thousands of their kind claim it isn't clearly evades your grasp as the norm.

Except your facts are not facts, just your imagination.

The fact that our boats get started later each year due to ice remaining and freezing is sooner over the last few years kinda pops your bubble.

Ah yes, once again we have your calibrated observation (just as with caribou population/migrations and bear numbers). You know more about climate, from observing weather for 3 months, than anyone!

But when are you going to learn that weather isn't climate?

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Except your facts are not facts, just your imagination.
Ah yes, once again we have your calibrated observation (just as with caribou population/migrations and bear numbers). You know more about climate, from observing weather for 3 months, than anyone!

But when are you going to learn that weather isn't climate?

You really amaze me with your inabilty to grasp the stuff you copy and paste. You claim the Caribou population dropped by some 75%, but you didn't read the entire artical you pasted. Just below it, was the startment of why, they quit counting "Calves" as part of the program since they have such a high rate of predidation, and that the herds were not massing as in the past which made it harder to count them.

As you stated that most of the "Enviromental" groups were after the money and then you point out the guys there spending millions studing the climate. I would bet they are all making six figures to justify their work a year. Follow the money.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by starlite9

So who's fault was the end of the last "Ice Age"...

Sorry, I think I left a window open.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by starlite9

You really amaze me with your inabilty to grasp the stuff you copy and paste. You claim the Caribou population dropped by some 75%, but you didn't read the entire artical you pasted. Just below it, was the startment of why, they quit counting "Calves" as part of the program since they have such a high rate of predidation, and that the herds were not massing as in the past which made it harder to count them.

I can't figure out what you are referencing. I don't recall anything saying the "caribou population dropped by some 75%".

It appears the above is another of your fabulous imaginative fabrications.

As you stated that most of the "Enviromental" groups were after the money and then you point out the guys there spending millions studing the climate. I would bet they are all making six figures to justify their work a year. Follow the money.

Sigh.

Most of the scientists are on shoe string budgets, to put it mildly. But you did get it right, even if you don't know what you said: people like Greenpeace (and no they are not evironmentalists) are "after the money". They are taking it in. The scientists are spending money. Passing it out. Exactly the opposite of Greenpeace.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

You need to hurry up and get over here to the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium and let all these scientists know about that.

Head down here and see "global warming"...if you can find it. LOL Hasn't been too warm out by my land in Alaska either, I've kept track of the weather there and compare it to the past...the earth has cooled and many scientists know that.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Most of the scientists are on shoe string budgets, to put it mildly.

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

but we have dozens of scientist spending millions of dollars on research here in Barrow,

I got to get me some of those juicy shoe strings!

[karfar]

Amazing. You guys live in a gorgeous area yet the word "conservation" or "environmentalist" throws you in a tizzy. Can't quite figure out why some of you have such illogical disdain for it.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by karfar

Amazing. You guys live in a gorgeous area yet the word "conservation" or "environmentalist" throws you in a tizzy. Can't quite figure out why some of you have such illogical disdain for it.

Simple. I can best illustrate with a story:

The other day I was watching one of those new "green channels" on cable and they had some show featuring a bunch of "researchers" making an expedition up to Alaska to observe melting glaciers, methane bubbles in lakes on the north slope, salmon runs... Anyway, one of these guys does a trip up into the Wrangell-Saint Elias to observe Dall Sheep. After a few days or weeks, whatever, his learned, eriudite conclusion is simply: "I need to come back and do more research". That one senetnce crystalizes everything that has been said so far in this discusiion about scientists, environmentalists, conservationists, money, etc.

We all see and ridicule this behavior all the time in the business world. A new manager gets promoted and what's the first thing they do? Put together some more complicated business plans to justify hiring a new staff, raising an expesnse and travel acount, putting in new policies, all of course administered by themselves. It's called "dynasty bulding" or "manufacturing job security" - a form of protecting ones self interest by making one (in theory) less expendable. Politicians are notorious for the same thing - determining the need for some new commission or committe to solve some manufactured problem (with themself at the chair of course) thus requiring a new budget, staff, aides, laws, regulations, etc.

Scientists or researchers are no different, THEY ARE WORKING STIFFS JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. When given the opportunity to enhance their own job security, they jump like all the rest. They have to eat and pay the bills just like everyone else. The root cause lies in the fact that, despite it's lofty objectives, science is an institution with the same crippling weakeness as all the rest - it ultimately depends on the human being. Just as business and politics are subject to human failings, and thus deserve healthy doses of scrutiny and skepticism, so does science.

In other words, it's already widely accepted that politicians and businessmen have made a complete mess of things. There's no reason to believe that scientists aren't doing the same.