The problem with your argument is that it ignores basic ecological principles. I am not saying anything about Bush or you or the animal rights activists to which you refer. What I am saying is that boom in that deer population, due to the increased availability of their food source, is bound to result in a more disastrous course for one or several other species in that ecosystem.

Perhaps a lichen will be obliterated in its yearly cycle due to being out-competed by the "vegetation" you mention. Maybe the warmer climate being generated by the pipeline will impinge on the hibernation of several species who need that low metabolic state to survive. The point is, while the "yelping" about the deer herds may seem to be way off base in retrospect, it is impossible to know what catastrophic effects the pipeline is having on other species until decades pass and it is too late to do anything about it.

I am no tree hugger, that's for sure. Yet, there are places in this industrialized world that are relatively untouched by humans. Alaska, of course, is one of those places. Each summer, it teems with a diversity that is all but unparalleled in the natural world. Seeking to drill or otherwise industrialize Alaska, the few remaining tracts of rainforest, and other such places is just plain wrong. Geological surveys show us that the rainforests and Alaska are NOT the only huge reserves of fossil fuels left on Earth. Until an alternative energy source goes more mainstream, it is reprehensible to destroy such territory when another 25-50 years could make such a huge difference in how we produce and consume our energy.

Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with money, stupidity, and the mess we leave for our children.

[ Show Entire Thread ]