Behind the ANWR Scare Tactics
The Washington Times is the BEST Moonie paper in the nation.But it has some good writers.The activist enviro groups have always done very well when there is a pro-development administration in office. (always Republican). E.g. the Sierra Club's direct mail revenue during the James Watt years went up many fold.I doubt any of the named species would be seriously harmed by the proposed development. It's the concept of 'Wilderness' that is really at stake. Do we as Americans want to retain an 18 million acre wilderness where the hand of man is not to be seen?I feel the conservation movement is moving off this vision of 'nature apart' and in the direction of more practical conservation. Part of this is, I think, because research is showing that the hand of man has been all over much of the earth for a long time (though probably not at ANWAR). For example, the prairies of the Great Plains would have never existed, had the Native Americans not burned, and often. Man created the praire by burning from the time the glaciers left until today. The same goes for many forests and plains around the world.So the current is against wilderness advocates and with the man-as-a-part-of-nature advocates. My feeling is that if species aren't irreparably harmed -- and it is hard to think that any could be, given the limited nature of the drilling -- then ANWAR should be drilled. But ANWAR will never again be a vast wilderness, and that is a loss, and I hope future generations forgive us for that.