What "value" is being negated?

The value as wildlife refuge & habitat.


Scooby Doo wrote:
The other NINETY-TWO PERCENT REMAINS UNTOUCHED.

And if the construction cuts migration routes, then the whole rest of it
might as well not be there.



And even if it doesn't, it appears the loonylefty mantra has changed from
"People, not profits" to "Caribou, not people".


That's right, if you can't make logic and facts work for you, call the
other guy names.

Frankly, I don't care much about caribou. As you said, there are a lot
of them and they're all over the place. There are much more rare &
valuable species up there ("valuable" in the sense of filling critical
ecological niches, not something that contributes to Halliburton's EPS).


... Before you answer, ponder the fact that
the caribou population has TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska
Pipeline.

Meaning what? There are more buffalo now, too... does that mean the open
prairie is better than ever?


According to the buffalo, whose wellbeing you apparently value more than
humans', it appears to be so.

So, you really think that the population penned buffalo on feed lots is
a measure of environmental success?




There's also more forestland in the US than there was in 1900.

Malarkey. I guess back in 1900 they were paving thousands of acres per
day for shopping mall parking lots & roads.



... No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about
'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas?

No doubt I'm one of the people what understand what "wildlife refuge"
means, and a have a slight grasp of ecology, nyet tovarisch?


"Wildlife refuge" means that a Democrat at the Department of the Interior
designated the land as such.

Really? Was Teddy Roosevelt a Democrat?



Some "independence from Middle East Sources" huh?


Better than without it.

Yes, a little bit. But is the benefit to the whole nation worth the
loss? I think not. Those who are reaping tremendous profits have a
different way of balancing it... and they've persuaded amny people
they're "right."


But since your definition of "compromise" is rejecting a deal that
gives you over 92% of what you want, it's obvious you don't have a
rational cell in your brain.

More name calling. I've tried to patiently explain why this is
absolutely in no way "92% of what the opposition wants" but you can't
seem to grasp it. Let me try one more time... if somebody chopped thru
the walls of your house, and put a wall thru the middle of it, cutting
off access to at least several rooms, and that wall had exposed high
voltage wires along with very noisy machinery & piped that emitted
stinky poisons, would you be getting 92% of what *you* want because the
wall only takes up 8% of your floor space?

Think.
It's painful but the results are worth it.

DSK