Alaskan oil drilling interests sink photography exhibit

[DavidP #28649]

Glad you said it first.

Putting "nature before people" is exactly the kind of mentality
that gets one called a "tree hugger." Sorry if that offends some,
but if you have a philosophy and vent it, you're likely to find
labels on the back of your shirt.

My personal philosophy is that while nature is always worth saving,
you'll never accomplish that by banning people from nature. Let
mankind enjoy nature and it will want to preserve it.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[glowluzid]

Your shots from the airplane remind me. Why is it that the "tree
huggers" don't mind using man-made vehicles (that use fossil fuels,
no less) to head out to visit "nature"?

They want the right to visit nature for themselves, but disallow the public at large from entering protected areas.

More equal than equal.

 

[DavidP #28649]

It's "secession", as in to secede.

Just setting the record straight.

PS -- glad that somebody else recognizes the difference in a republic vs. a democracy. Which makes you wonder, why are we always fighting to make the world a democracy? Hmmmmmmmmm.

States rights weren't the issue in 1861. It was succession of
states. Succession goes beyond the rights of a constitutional
union.

Slavery on the same hand, was not a states right issue, if that's
what you're thinking, it was a federal issue (3/5 person, etc.).

But then, I'm betting you probably think pure democracy is better
than a constitutional republic.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

I mentioned that only 1000 - 1500 people each year visit ANWR.

It's left as an exercise for the curious to see how many of those are "tree huggers" on trips put on by environmentalist groups.

They want the right to visit nature for themselves, but disallow
the public at large from entering protected areas.

More equal than equal.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[glowluzid]

The state of UT had a state park, fully under one of the best wilderness protection and tourist control policies in the nation, and still, Clinton ursurped Grand Staircase-Escalante for the federal government.

Even worse, some of what could be visited, was staged off limits to all public. though, if you're an environmentalist of the correct political party, you get in.

 

[glowluzid]

It's "secession", as in to secede.

 

[billtoo]

Are photo exhibits normally left on the main floor of the
Smithsonian for ever?

I'm one of two reporters who actually lives in the region we're
talking about here. I've never heard of Subhankar Banerjee...

Maybe the LA Times should try and get its readers to use a little
less gasoline. That might help.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
billtoo
camera - One-D, favorite lens 70-twohundred/2.8 IS
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo

 

[Jung57676]

I like to think that nature is there not solely for my benefit. It's like walking into a library: there are many books in there that I don't care for, but I am glad they are there for other reasoins.

Same for nature. I don't care to be in the company of mosquitos or other biting insects, but I do think they have a role to play in life. Yes, there are many wild places I don't care to venture, but I am glad they are there.

It sure seemed like we have a lot of these wild places and that many of them look the same, so it's OK to lose some (try to explain that to the creatures and plants that live there). But then again it seems to me that human being are always being shortsighted when it comes to these matters. I am rather be safe than sorry: once something like that gone, it's gone forever. At least we won't have to explain that to our great grand children because we are too, gone

It seemed to me that human being, I included, are taking a bigger share on this planet than needed. I am trying to minimize.

Hope that just the case that there are more of people enjoying
nature photography, and that they don't spend time in these threads
because they are out there taking photos and enjoying nature, or
what's left of it.

I for one, can't stand the thought of taking photos of zoo animals.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

States are obviously unable to preserve wilderness on their own. LOL.

Don't the feds and states together own something absurd like 1/3 of the total land in the US?

The state of UT had a state park, fully under one of the best
wilderness protection and tourist control policies in the nation,
and still, Clinton ursurped Grand Staircase-Escalante for the
federal government.

Even worse, some of what could be visited, was staged off limits to
all public. though, if you're an environmentalist of the correct
political party, you get in.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'm sure all the "tree hugger" enviro-whacko folks (primarily Hollywood types) are giving up THEIR yachts, mansions, jets, etc. in an effort to minimize the impact on nature.

But, hey, they do their part, I'm sure. They'll be the first to buy some of those neat-o electric vehicles.

But I'll bet you won't find them actually USING them.

I like to think that nature is there not solely for my benefit.
It's like walking into a library: there are many books in there
that I don't care for, but I am glad they are there for other
reasoins.

Same for nature. I don't care to be in the company of mosquitos or
other biting insects, but I do think they have a role to play in
life. Yes, there are many wild places I don't care to venture, but
I am glad they are there.

It sure seemed like we have a lot of these wild places and that
many of them look the same, so it's OK to lose some (try to explain
that to the creatures and plants that live there). But then again
it seems to me that human being are always being shortsighted when
it comes to these matters. I am rather be safe than sorry: once
something like that gone, it's gone forever. At least we won't have
to explain that to our great grand children because we are too,
gone

It seemed to me that human being, I included, are taking a bigger
share on this planet than needed. I am trying to minimize.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Jung57676]

I am more concern with the majority of the population. The "enviro-whacko folks" you mentioned represent a tiny portion of the population, so whether they'll do their part is not as significant as whether the rest of us will.

But, hey, they do their part, I'm sure. They'll be the first to
buy some of those neat-o electric vehicles.

But I'll bet you won't find them actually USING them.

I like to think that nature is there not solely for my benefit.
It's like walking into a library: there are many books in there
that I don't care for, but I am glad they are there for other
reasoins.

Same for nature. I don't care to be in the company of mosquitos or
other biting insects, but I do think they have a role to play in
life. Yes, there are many wild places I don't care to venture, but
I am glad they are there.

It sure seemed like we have a lot of these wild places and that
many of them look the same, so it's OK to lose some (try to explain
that to the creatures and plants that live there). But then again
it seems to me that human being are always being shortsighted when
it comes to these matters. I am rather be safe than sorry: once
something like that gone, it's gone forever. At least we won't have
to explain that to our great grand children because we are too,
gone

It seemed to me that human being, I included, are taking a bigger
share on this planet than needed. I am trying to minimize.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

But THEY are the very ones calling for "the population" (the peons) to give up things to "save the environment", while THEY don't do a thing.

I represent a much smaller part of the population than the enviro-whackos. So if it's OK with you if THEY don't give up THEIR toys, I hope it's fine wit you that I don't give up mine.

But, hey, they do their part, I'm sure. They'll be the first to
buy some of those neat-o electric vehicles.

But I'll bet you won't find them actually USING them.

I like to think that nature is there not solely for my benefit.
It's like walking into a library: there are many books in there
that I don't care for, but I am glad they are there for other
reasoins.

Same for nature. I don't care to be in the company of mosquitos or
other biting insects, but I do think they have a role to play in
life. Yes, there are many wild places I don't care to venture, but
I am glad they are there.

It sure seemed like we have a lot of these wild places and that
many of them look the same, so it's OK to lose some (try to explain
that to the creatures and plants that live there). But then again
it seems to me that human being are always being shortsighted when
it comes to these matters. I am rather be safe than sorry: once
something like that gone, it's gone forever. At least we won't have
to explain that to our great grand children because we are too,
gone

It seemed to me that human being, I included, are taking a bigger
share on this planet than needed. I am trying to minimize.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

BTW, I don't think the proponents of electric cars have given much thought to where the power will come from that's used to charge the batteries. Or the disposal problems resulting from all those batteries that would be used in the cars.

That energy doesn't come for free. And whether it comes from oil, coal, gas, or nuclear, the enviro's will be against it.

Heck, they'd probably be against the "sight pollution" caused by windmills or acres of solar panels, too.

And hydro-electric power? Forget about it. That will upset the eco-system of some snail-darter or something.

Where do they think THEIR power comes from?

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Joe Carson]

The flutes in the sniper barrel help dissipate the heat.
;^)
Joe

 

[Jung57676]

From a larger perspective, this planet eventually is going away, so whatever we do probably doesn't matter in the long run.

In the mean time, people do what they want to do. For me, there are certain things that I don't want to trample on, like the environment and others' decision do live their life the way they want to. I just wish that we really think about our choices before we make them, like we do when we buy a new lens

 

[The Texan]

But where are the moose? mooses? meece? Oh, yeah... they're in the parking lot of Taco Bell in Anchorage. Honestly, that's where I saw my last Moose. I guess they don't crave the pristine beauty of ANWR after all.

Seriously. There isn't a state that has more wilderness per developed acre than Alaska. And anchorage has more moose than people inside the city limit. Animals don't shrivel up and die because people move in next door. They are more resilient than many of you think.

Despite whatever is claimed, these photos prove that ANWR is pretty
much prime for oil picking. Yep, this is proof! (grin)







:There are actually some live animals in ANWR.

 

[DavidP #28649]

That's all fine.

But do the enviro's really want to make choices? It doesn't appear so.

If they wanted to truly make rational choices, they'd think about things like "where's the energy gonna come from to charge those car batteries?".

I'd like to see THEM figure out how to produce enough energy to meet the demands of the US, with minimal impact, and without raising costs so much that people (other than themselves, of course) couldn't afford it.

In the mean time, people do what they want to do. For me, there are
certain things that I don't want to trample on, like the
environment and others' decision do live their life the way they
want to. I just wish that we really think about our choices before
we make them, like we do when we buy a new lens

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Jung57676]

I'd like to see THEM figure out how to produce enough energy to
meet the demands of the US, with minimal impact, and without
raising costs so much that people (other than themselves, of
course) couldn't afford it.

I hope they will, and I hope we will. I can't tell the difference between "we" and "they", but a solution is a solution, no matter who come up with it.

But do the enviro's really want to make choices? It doesn't
appear so.

If they wanted to truly make rational choices, they'd think about
things like "where's the energy gonna come from to charge those car
batteries?".

I'd like to see THEM figure out how to produce enough energy to
meet the demands of the US, with minimal impact, and without
raising costs so much that people (other than themselves, of
course) couldn't afford it.

In the mean time, people do what they want to do. For me, there are
certain things that I don't want to trample on, like the
environment and others' decision do live their life the way they
want to. I just wish that we really think about our choices before
we make them, like we do when we buy a new lens

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[gpb11]

(a) because I really don't give a flip

(b) the winner tends to rewrite the history books to provide their viewpoint;

(c) Secession from the Union is the ultimate right of a State.

(d) I said nothing about slavery.

(e) You seem to jump to some very odd conclusions about what I do or don't think based on a handful of words completely unrelated to those conclusions. How could you possibly have the first clue as to what I do or don't think about pure democracy vs. a constitutional republic?

Please note that any questions posed in this post are rhetorical. I really don't care much about the answers and will not continue this thread beyond this post.

Regards.

-- Lew

didn't work in 1861, and just about as likely 142 years later...

States rights weren't the issue in 1861. It was succession of
states. Succession goes beyond the rights of a constitutional
union.

Slavery on the same hand, was not a states right issue, if that's
what you're thinking, it was a federal issue (3/5 person, etc.).

But then, I'm betting you probably think pure democracy is better
than a constitutional republic.

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

 

[Forrest41926]

Don't the feds and states together own something absurd like 1/3 of
the total land in the US?

It's true. And the Catholic Church owns the other 2/3?