03-16-2023, 01:21 PM
(03-16-2023 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ](03-16-2023 12:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ](03-16-2023 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ](03-16-2023 12:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ](03-16-2023 12:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO said "the people opposing the road are frustratingly low (zero is low,right?) on details of how the road will be a negative impact on wildlife."
I assumed he had read something that provided insight into those opposing the road.
I agree that these NEWS articles were light on details - but those are not the people who oppose the road.
I have no idea what those opposing the matter have done or what studies have been conducted on this. If I had to guess, there has been an environmental assessment commissioned by Fish and Wildlife or the Dept of Interior to evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the road. If I had to guess, there is likely a wealth of information out there and those groups opposing the road, just like those advocating for it, can point to concrete examples as to why they feel the road should not be buit.
Or, I can take Fox News article as an all encompassing deep dive of the situation and state that "the people opposing the road are frustratingly low (zero is low,right?) on details of how the road will be a negative impact on wildlife."
Seems to me that you're the one most interested in further details.
Well, yeah! Did you read my first post???
"I was hopeful that the article would actually answer that question and provide information as to why groups argued there was an environmental issue with building the road. But, well, Fox News."
Well, then, shouldn't it be you doing that research and not the other posters? You're the most interested, and the most qualified.
When another posters says that the opposition hasn’t provided a lot of information, it sure sounds like they have already done the research. So I’m asking them what they found when they looked. How else would they know what the opposition has said?
You said that exact thing in your first (post 1990). So I guess we can assume you have done the research, right?
My post you quote is an echoing response to you (post 1991). It was meant to mock your post 1990, not to provide a detailed analysis of what seems to be obvious motivations on both sides; one side wants safety for its citizens; the other wants undisturbed landing sites for waterfowl.
You also ignore the rest of my post 1991: I will provide that for you, again:
"The people proposing the road at least can show a positive impact on human safety."
Or do you think I need to find a study showing that a road to an all weather airport enhances safety for those citizens. Maybe something produced by a government commission at a seven figure cost declaring that better access to health is beneficial?