John H. wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 07:10:43 -0700, wrote:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Scooby Doo wrote:

As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless.


Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

Do you know for a fact he's single, or is that just another wild, unfounded
allegation?

Damn, you're stupid.

wrote:
It appears that Mr. Kruase is here just to disrupt this forum. He doesn't
want to discuss boats or have a rational debate on any topic. He is nothing
more than a newsgroup troll.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Scooby Doo wrote:

As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless.
Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats.
Seems you can't rationally debate either.

Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.




I don't like arguing with fools. But if I change my mind, I'll contact
you, ok?

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 11 Aug 2005 10:50:42 -0700, wrote:


What sign? I wanted to take a look but I don't see a link or anything
in your post...


Let me try again. I wasn't sure it worked anyway....


Let's clarify this one and for all:

Attachments is supported by less than 10% of the worlds
news-servers.

This means that if you attach an image to something you post to
"rec.boats", 9 out of 10 news servers will remove it, and store
/forward onle the plain text of your post.

1 in 10 readers will be able to see your "Fuel_sign.jpg".

If you want all of us to see it, put it on your web-site,
and post a link to it. Then we can go see it for ourselves.

--
Dag.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:10:54 GMT, "Dag Sunde" wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Aug 2005 10:50:42 -0700, wrote:


What sign? I wanted to take a look but I don't see a link or anything
in your post...


Let me try again. I wasn't sure it worked anyway....


Let's clarify this one and for all:

Attachments is supported by less than 10% of the worlds
news-servers.

This means that if you attach an image to something you post to
"rec.boats", 9 out of 10 news servers will remove it, and store
/forward onle the plain text of your post.

1 in 10 readers will be able to see your "Fuel_sign.jpg".

If you want all of us to see it, put it on your web-site,
and post a link to it. Then we can go see it for ourselves.

Or post it in alt.binaries.pictures.fishing. It will be there only temporarily,
but it's an easy way to get a picture on the 'net.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

wrote:

Jack Redington wrote:

wrote:


Jack Redington wrote:


St wrote:



Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium,
downstate NY. No regular available at my marina





I was charged $2.49 about two weeks ago at Hartwell marina on Lake
Hartwell (Ga side) A marina that was closer wanted $2.79 (89o)

Capt Jack R..


Jack, is that the marina that's close to Tugaloo State Park?



The one nearest Tugaloo State Park is Lighthouse marina (near the I-85
bridge) They are at $2.79


That's the one I was thinking of!

. That is real close ot our place on Gumlog

creek. I fact I can see Tugaloo State park from my dock.


Have a friend that just sold a place in Fair Play, SC, and moved over
to the GA side quite close to there, he's having a new dock put in,
real nice house.

I hope I find myself wandering down by the dam when it comes fill-up
time again :-) Hartwell marina is by Hart State park in Hartwell Ga.


Do you ever go over to "The Island"? Met a lot of interesting folks
there the last time I was there.



This is our first year with a place on Hartwell. We had camped out at
some of the state parks before we got our little "weekender" So we know
we liked the lake and fled Lanier. We use to keep the boat on the
trailer at Starboard Marina.

Anyway I am not sure where "The Island" is. There are a bunch of them as
I am sure you already know. I have not noticed any specific gathering
places. But them again we are just beginning to really get the feel of
this area.

We are finding lots of good food in the area. The T60 and Gumlog BBQ are
both excellent.

Capt Jack R..

Bill McKee wrote:
Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.


Who has a "vested interest" in no development?

My interest is in what's best for the country in the long run. An actual
ecology would be very nice, much better than huge short-term profits for
Bush/Cheney's chosen.

Do you have a "vested interest" in seeing the ANWR befouled? Do you get
a share of the oil money?

DSK

"ed" wrote:
You all know it doesnt matter how many pipelines we have, how many wells we
have, the problem is we dont have the refineries to produce the gas. We can
have a surplus of oil and we will still have this problem. We havent built a
new refinery in over 20 years.

That's a red hering.

We *have* expanded nearly every currently operating refinery,
and we *could* expand them even more. The oil companies don't
want to. In addition, they have been shutting off refineries by
the dozens...

As to the process for building new refineries or new capacity at
old refineries, it isn't all that difficult. For example, the
last new refinery in the US was built by Petro Star in Valdez
Alaska. They brag about how fast that went from a gleam in the
Board's eye to reality... The idea was conceived in 1991, and
the refinery was online in early 1993.

If we don't have enough refinery capacity, it is clearly a
fault of the industry. Now... why would they do that??? :-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Bill McKee" wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Scooby Doo wrote:

As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless.

Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.


Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.

Yeah, right.

Clearly that does seem to be true. You've posted outlandish
claims, but when faced with facts... no response.

Hmmmm...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Bill McKee" wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!


Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

I've posted cites for the scientific studies.

You again are making false claims that you fabricate, and clearly you
have *no* concept of what you are saying.

The studies cited are the product of ongoing studies of how to
get *more* oil production on the North Slope of Alaska. They
are funded entirely by oil taxes, and are accomplished by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (fully funded by oil taxes)
with support from the Department of the Interior's US Fish and
Wildlife Service, which is also very clearly pro-oil, and funded
by oil dollars too.

Now that only leaves the "posting by someone", who would be *me*!
And you claim there is "a vested interest in no development".

But the facts are that I have a huge vested interest in *more*
oil development on the North Slope. That oil development won't
do *you* any good, because 1) it won't reduce dependence on
foreign oil, 2) won't reduce the price of gasoline, 3) won't
reduce your taxes, and 3) won't provide jobs where you live.
But it *will* provide tax dollars (and a few jobs) for Alaskans
in specific, but more so for people who live on the North Slope.

Of course, I am a permanent resident of the North Slope and
stand to gain from any new oil discovered on the North Slope
more than even the average Alaskan.

So the question is, when are you going to find reality and stop
posting your fairy tales?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:

Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

I've posted cites previously, which McKee seems to ignore because it
blows his stance out of the water.

....
make it out to be. Now, let's make this easy on you. Where are the
scientific studies that you saw that said that the caribou along the
pipeline like it, are and are thriving because of it.

Just to repeat, there *are* studies. They do *not* show that
caribou like pipelines or are in any way benefiting from it,
much less thriving because of it. These are highlights of only
the most recent studies (the last 15 years of studies that have been
going on for 30 years now).

Cameron RD, KR Whitten, and WT Smith. 1981. Distribution and
movements of caribou in relation to the Kuparuk Development
Area. 3rd Interim Rep to ARCO. 25pp.

Smith WT and RD Cameron. 1983. Responses of caribou to
petroleum development on Alaska's Arctic Slope. Acta Zool
Fenn. 175:43-45.

Whitten KR and RD Cameron. 1983. Movements of collared
caribou in relation to petroleum development on the Arctic
Slope of Alaska. Can Field-Nat. 97:143-146.

Dau, J.R., and R.D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road
system on caribou distribution during calving.
Rangifer, Special Issue No. 1:95-101.

Dau JR and RD Cameron. 1986. Responses of barren-ground
caribou to petroleum development near Milne Point,
Alaska. Final Rep to Conoco, Inc and Continental Pipeline
Company. 25pp.

Smith WT and RD Cameron. 1986. Distribution and movements of
caribou in relation to the Kuparuk Development Area. Alaska
Dep Fish and Game. Fed Aid in Wildl Restor. Final Rep. Proj
W-21-2, W-22-1, W-22-2, W-22-3, W-22-4, W-22-5. Job
3.30R. 47pp.

Cameron, R.D., D.J. Reed, J.R. Dau, and W.T. Smith.
1992. Redistribution of calving caribou in response
to oil field development on the arctic slope of Alaska.
Arctic. 45:338-342.

Smith WT, RD Cameron, and DJ Reed. 1994. Distribution and
movements of caribou in relation to roads and pipelines,
Kuparuk Development Area, 1978-90. Alaska Dep Fish and Game,
Wildl Tech Bull 12. 54pp.

Cameron RD, EA Lenart, DJ Reed, KR Whitten, and WT
Smith. 1995. Abundance and movements of caribou in the
oilfield complex near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Rangifer. 15:3-7.

Cameron, R.D. 1995. Distribution and productivity of
the Central Arctic Herd in relation to petroleum
development: case history studies with a nutritional
perspective. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Resp. Final Rept.
AK. Dept. Fish and Game. Juneau. 35pp.

Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences
of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development.
Arctic 49:23-28.

Just to identify two of the names in the above cites...

Raymond Cameron is perhaps considered the dean of caribou
reseachers. He was, for 20+ years before retiring, head of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game research projects at Prudhoe
Bay studying the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. Cameron has
opposed drilling in ANWR.

Ken Whitten stands next to Ray Cameron as the most notable
caribou researcher for the Porcupine Caribou Herd. He is also
retire after more than 20+ years heading up the ADF&G research
project on the Porcupine Caribou Herd (the herd which calves in
ANWR). Whitten has been perhaps the most vocal of all
biologists in opposing oil development in ANWR. He has
testified before Congress to that effect.

For specifics about what caribou research actually does show, it
*is* available online. Here is more than anyone really wants to
know:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm

To just get the conclusions, go to this URL and read what
they decide it all means:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)