Drabav

If they stick to the plan. I would hope that would happen. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to be the history of industry in this country. And actually, the estimate is more along the lines of 2000 acres, but that will most likely be spread over a large area, and the roads and pipelines could cut the 1002 area into a maze. Let me remind you, 1002 has the largest concentration of onshore polar bear dens in the world, the summer home to around 138 species of migratory birds, and the caving grounds of a 123,000 member caribou herd. Not to mention the lichen species, which make up all of the vegitation of the area, are extremely sensitive to pollution. When it comes to wilderness protection, its a big wound to build oil wells in a wildlife refuge. Who knows what could happen next? Drilling in National Parks? Its a sad thought. And where do you live that they burn gasoline for electrical generation? I've didn't know that it was used that way. Draba v. ...A postscript to the hope of spring.

The vote has been cast. 51-49, in favor of drilling. Whether we are happy or not about it, oil exploration in ANWR is almost inevitable. The purpose of this thread is to figure out what the impact of drilling will be upon the ecology of both the area directly drilled upon, as well as the surrounding area. Please feel free to rant on the topic if you wish, or not or whatever. I think I am going to go sleep now. This topic has me personally exausted and depressed. Draba v. ...A postscript to the hope of spring.

We're all kinda fond of our frog populations in wisconsin. When we disected them in high school, they were shipped in in bags of fermaldehyde and alcohol. Definatly none living there. But I have to say, the best dissection was one of those giant grasshoppers from texas. Yummy! Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

In that case, its about respect in a different way. Just like humans have territories, so do puma. Wolves do as well, but they live in packs for the most part, and seem to be wary of human territories in general. Coyotes, on the other hand, go where the scavenge is, at least around human settlements. Otherwise they are generally rodentiavores. By where is Sayonara, I mean, isn't he the top poster on this board? He hasn't replied since yesterday afternoon. Well, I guess hes a busy person by any means, more busy than I, and most likely much more productive as well. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

In truth, it is when one fails to respect an animal that one gets mauled by it. At least for wild animals. But this thread is not about that topic. BTW, where is Sayonara? Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

I just read a statistic that indicates it is more likely you will be hit by lightning than be attacked by a wolf in northern Minnesota. About 3 times more likely. In the past 50 years only 17 people have been reportedly killed by wolves in all of Europe, Russia and North America. You do the math. IMO, on the side, the real animal you should be wary of is Alces alces, the Moose. That is the species Im staying away from. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring. (yes I know. go brag about it then.)

Just so you know, there has not been one reported human death by wolf, or by Coyote, in north america since we found out about them. Wolves just don't kill humans, and I don't believe Coyotes have either. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Very true. And that is why I believe that he is arguing more for ecosystem restoration in terms of damages we create today, rather in past damages. You are talking about Peregrin Falcons. They have been doing this for some time now. This may be one example, but most are few and far between. The majority of the species on this planet do not use "artefacts" in replacement of "nature". You laugh at this, so you obviously do not realize the truth in it. In Wisconsin for some time we have been having pets killed by the gray wolves that have slowly been migrating down from the UP and Nothern Minnesota. Many people believe they should all be exterminated. So watch what you laugh at. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Truly. How do we measure the value of an ecosystem? Do we measure it in utilitarian value? Or perhaps Aesthetics? Possibly it is because of our morals or humanistic concern? Or maybe Scientistic or Naturalistic value, what we can learn from it? Or is our value simply of Ecology? These are all different things people value about "nature". Which one is the best? Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Im sorry. I just like to understand what I read, rather than just taking as true. Its part of my "nature". And after reading this explanation, I understand the concept, and realize you are speaking of the process of ecosystem evolution. or at least thats what it seems to be to me. In the long term it may lead to succession and climax communities, at which point the stability continues until there is a abiotic or biotic "disturbance"(just separating this from what Katz deems to be different, namely human disturbance). I believe that his arguement is still about this historical continuity. An ecosystem changes in this way "naturaly" in his mind, and the value is still retained. Restoration is an "artefact" of human inclination, and thus he deems it of lesser value. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Too true, and I would have no hope of being able to buy food in the future because of my ecological curiosity. I am sorry, could you please word that arguement about the system of interfaces differently, because I am not sure if I understand correctly. I am curious, and know a few things, but I am still a student, and your terminology just went over my head, so to speak. True, and this is the very reason why his arguement is worth analyzing. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Again, syntax, you forget that, while your definition of "natural" (which, not to be rude, you have not fully provided for us) is not the same as the definition Katz holds, nor, for that matter, the same as mine. It would be good to take that into account when you post. If you are trying to sway anyone with simplistic language, its not helping the disscussion of this thread, which is truly anything but a simple matter. Were it simple, I would not have made a thread about it. Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.). The reason we value such is for ecosystem integrity, but also Katz argues for the mear fact that we know that it has come about outside the influence of man. The first point holds some truth, of course, but the second is most definatly a debatable point, that depends upon ones direct moral attitude toward "nature", as well as ones definition of "natural". He uses an example (which you might spit upon, depending on your point of view, but hear me out) of a birch grove that he just happened upon (imaginarily) while walking. He admires how stable the grove is, how intact the trees are, and other numerous things dealing with asthetics. Later, he finds out that it was planted not 20 years back, and because of the fact that it did not come about "naturally (that is, by historic continuity of that area) it has lost some of the value he had placed upon it. He also argues that, even when he never knows that an area has lost its Historic Continuity, it still has that reduced value. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

I would argue that there is no "becoming" in evolutionary development. Every stage is intermediate, there are no missing links, and all stages blend into each other, so well in some stages that you can't easily tell the difference between one stage and the next. I would also bid that this is a process that takes place over millions of years and continues to take place as we type. There are no true "products" in evolutionary developement, just points on a line (or web) that continues far beyond what we see at this moment in both directions. I would also apologize for this small tangent of mine. When I return from class, I will post on Historical Continuity and Ecosystem value. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.

I know that this statement is not pointed at me, but I would like to ask what other opinions and arguements you have for or against Katz position. I started this thread in hope of disscussion, and I still as well see that there is more that can be discussed. Draba v. ...a postscript to the hope of spring.