(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?

(03-16-2023 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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:  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?

I did not - here is what I said:

"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."

That focuses on the reporter, not the opposition or the proponents.

I guess you think asking a reporter to do a better job at reporting is worthy of being mocked?

(03-16-2023 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess you think asking a reporter to do a better job at reporting is worthy of being mocked?

Happens to me and other right-wingers all the time, when I note the biased reporting on MSNBC and CNN.

(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.

Why would you assume that?? Other than to put the burden on 'the other side' to prove a negative?

Quote:I agree that these NEWS articles were light on details - but those are not the people who oppose the road.

They also aren't the people who are in favor of it. What's your point?

You got upset about the lack of detail in the fox story, but there is little detail in EITHER story. OO seems to be trying to make that clear to you, but you only seem to care about one side.

Quote: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.

Sure. Was that presented by those who oppose it?

Quote: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."

Absolutely... but you didn't... I suspect because your apparent 'preferred' source didn't either.

Your comment about the study is precisely the point I'm making. Before a decision can actually be made, there should be studies... but there is no mention of them in either article... certainly no details. You lament the lack of details in one, and present the other as if it is meaningfully more informative.

Yet you have now repeatedly declined to discuss that MEANINGFUL additional information that you somehow see.

(03-16-2023 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  so I get that the details are meaningful to you.... because as i understand it, this is at least related to your area... but I don't see that they are meaningful to 90% of the population.

Seriously, you seem to be looking to pick a fight here over the my comment that Fox News provided barely even a superficial level of information about the issue at hand. As we both agree, even the Times could have provided more details and context, but they did provide demonstrably more information about the issue at hand. But here you are, two posts in trying to tell me there is not a meaningful difference to some while also telling me that you get that there is a meaningful difference to others.

You think I'm picking a fight by noting that I understand that you are an environmental engineer or something along those lines?? Which places your interest and understanding of the details of certain aspects of this conversation 'above' the general public??

Wow, Mr sensitive once again.

How many environmental engineers do you think there are in this country?? And how many of them get the details on an environmental issue from CBS/NY Tmes/Fox/MSNBC? These are news stories, written for their viewers. For 90% of the population on BOTH sides of the aisle, the differences between the two stories is meaningless. To you as an individual, it may be... but I don't get upset or even say 'typical CBS' at the Evening News for not delving into a Masters Level discussion of economics regarding the actions of the stock markets today... or even for Fauci 'dumbing down' scientific research so that the average person can understand it.

but I asked you what was meaningful... and you haven't presented anything that I think many people would think was meaningful. If I were trying to pick a fight, I would have said that the differences were likely meaningful to a pedant... but that isn't remotely what I was doing. I was giving you the 'respect' of your profession... despite the fact (and we both know this) that if you really wanted details, the NY Times story is ALMOST as short on details as the Fox story... in that neither speaks about environmental studies or what the actual impact would be on the birds... does it mean they change their flight pattern by 50 feet or 50 miles? Does changing their pattern mean they die or the ecosystem is significantly impacted?? You STILL need vastly more details than the Times story presents.

I mean hell, Lad... if your spouse moves the utensils from the left of the sink to the right, it will impact your eating habits and dinner patterns.... but does that mean you don't eat? If it meant that you could keep the dish soap on the counter instead of under the sink which means you could keep the kitchen cleaner and your kid with auto-immmune disease healthier, would that be worth it to you? If it was worth it to you, would you want your neighbor telling you you couldn't??

And yeah... I think it uncumbent upon people (especially people who aren't THERE) to prove that the impact of this proposed action is 'not worth' the benefit and not the other way around. If this were a discussion among the people THERE, I would expect it to be more equal. According to the NY Times article (and at least implied in the FOX article) the locals are in favor of it.

So yes... it is incumbent upon people NOT THERE to make their case as to why these people shouldn't be allowed to improve their own lives.

(03-16-2023 02:02 PM)Hambone10 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.

Why would you assume that?? Other than to put the burden on 'the other side' to prove a negative?

Quote:I agree that these NEWS articles were light on details - but those are not the people who oppose the road.

They also aren't the people who are in favor of it. What's your point?

You got upset about the lack of detail in the fox story, but there is little detail in EITHER story. OO seems to be trying to make that clear to you, but you only seem to care about one side.

Quote: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.

Sure. Was that presented by those who oppose it?

Quote: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."

Absolutely... but you didn't... I suspect because your apparent 'preferred' source didn't either.

Your comment about the study is precisely the point I'm making. Before a decision can actually be made, there should be studies... but there is no mention of them in either article... certainly no details. You lament the lack of details in one, and present the other as if it is meaningfully more informative.

Yet you have now repeatedly declined to discuss that MEANINGFUL additional information that you somehow see.

(03-16-2023 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  so I get that the details are meaningful to you.... because as i understand it, this is at least related to your area... but I don't see that they are meaningful to 90% of the population.

Seriously, you seem to be looking to pick a fight here over the my comment that Fox News provided barely even a superficial level of information about the issue at hand. As we both agree, even the Times could have provided more details and context, but they did provide demonstrably more information about the issue at hand. But here you are, two posts in trying to tell me there is not a meaningful difference to some while also telling me that you get that there is a meaningful difference to others.

You think I'm picking a fight by noting that I understand that you are an environmental engineer or something along those lines?? Which places your interest and understanding of the details of certain aspects of this conversation 'above' the general public??

Wow, Mr sensitive once again.

How many environmental engineers do you think there are in this country?? And how many of them get the details on an environmental issue from CBS/NY Tmes/Fox/MSNBC? These are news stories, written for their viewers. For 90% of the population on BOTH sides of the aisle, the differences between the two stories is meaningless. To you as an individual, it may be... but I don't get upset or even say 'typical CBS' at the Evening News for not delving into a Masters Level discussion of economics regarding the actions of the stock markets today... or even for Fauci 'dumbing down' scientific research so that the average person can understand it.

but I asked you what was meaningful... and you haven't presented anything that I think many people would think was meaningful. If I were trying to pick a fight, I would have said that the differences were likely meaningful to a pedant... but that isn't remotely what I was doing. I was giving you the 'respect' of your profession... despite the fact (and we both know this) that if you really wanted details, the NY Times story is ALMOST as short on details as the Fox story... in that neither speaks about environmental studies or what the actual impact would be on the birds... does it mean they change their flight pattern by 50 feet or 50 miles? Does changing their pattern mean they die or the ecosystem is significantly impacted?? You STILL need vastly more details than the Times story presents.

I mean hell, Lad... if your spouse moves the utensils from the left of the sink to the right, it will impact your eating habits and dinner patterns.... but does that mean you don't eat? If it meant that you could keep the dish soap on the counter instead of under the sink which means you could keep the kitchen cleaner and your kid with auto-immmune disease healthier, would that be worth it to you? If it was worth it to you, would you want your neighbor telling you you couldn't??

And yeah... I think it uncumbent upon people (especially people who aren't THERE) to prove that the impact of this proposed action is 'not worth' the benefit and not the other way around. If this were a discussion among the people THERE, I would expect it to be more equal. According to the NY Times article (and at least implied in the FOX article) the locals are in favor of it.

So yes... it is incumbent upon people NOT THERE to make their case as to why these people shouldn't be allowed to improve their own lives.

If you want to understand why there has been less discussion on the difference between the details provided in the articles, take a look at the length of your posts and what they primarily focus on - they are primarily litigating things unrelated to the details you ask about. If you’re most interested in my take on the difference then focus on that instead of me assuming OO has done some extra reading because he says the opposition is light on details.

This is the quadiest post of all time and a wonderful example of tribalism at work.

(03-16-2023 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to understand why there has been less discussion on the difference between the details provided in the articles, take a look at the length of your posts and what they primarily focus on - they are primarily litigating things unrelated to the details you ask about. If you’re most interested in my take on the difference then focus on that instead of me assuming OO has done some extra reading because he says the opposition is light on details.

This is the quadiest post of all time and a wonderful example of tribalism at work.

Ok, this is truly funny.

I notice no difference in the details that YOU claimed. I've made that clear. You're right that there's no discussion about that because you made a claim, and then declined to support it. That's on you, not me. I can't focus on what you refuse to present.

Do you even realize that you outed yourself??

You complained about the brevity of the Fox piece... and then presented Times as somehow providing more meaningful information.... and then you attack OO because while BOTH of them claim some environmental concerns, no such evidence of those concerns are mentioned in either??

We seem to agree that such information would be valuable and meaningful... but you're more interested in feeling attacked, attacking ANYTHING that doesn't support your world view (in this case, Fox bad, Times good) and trying to play 'gotcha' than to have an intelligent conversation.

I didn't grow up on twitter. My life has never been constrained by 144 characters. Live with it

Tribalism? You're not a tribe... you're an entitled and arrogant prick. If that is your tribe, then I guess yes this is tribalism. Otherwise, I'm just pointing out your BS. I don't have to do that with many other members of 'your tribe'.

I don't know if it is because of his engineering background or not, but Lad is always quick to demand proof in the form of published studies. Sometimes I get the feeling that if I said it was nice weather today, he would want to know my sources for that statement. Could I please refer him to where I read that?

I was an academ at Rice, and a businessman later in life. Maybe that is a source of difference in how we make/take statements - I look more to the people involved, I think.

In this case, I go to the most likely reasons for the positions taken, since no reasons were provided or defended. Basically, on one side we have Alaskan people who are concerned that medical emergencies will arise at a time when the local airport is unusable. These people seem to be mostly Alaskans who are concerned for the people of the area. On the other side, we have "environmentalists", who probably are from all over, and who are mainly concerned in this case with landing sites for marsh birds.

Yes, if the road needed was a four lane super highway hundreds of miles long, or if the wetlands to protected were 500 acres instead of 300,000, I would give more credence to to environmental worries. It's not either. If one side needs proof that their concerns have merit, it is the environmentalists. I think we all concede that people sometimes need to be evacuated for medical help.

The point of the story is that this road was set up, and now Biden is backing out of it. Why?

The headline and first paragraph of the story I linked give us some clues:

"Biden admin buckles to environmental groups, makes sudden reversal on key land decision

The Biden administration announced late Tuesday that it would reverse a Trump-era land swap deal facilitating the construction, in an Alaska wilderness area, of a potentially life-saving road opposed by environmental groups."


Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump>

Here is an article on AP (not Fox) that doesn't mention Trump:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art...efuge-road

Here is another factoid of interest:
"The King Cove airport experiences frequent bad weather, making travel difficult. Residents for decades have sought a safer road to reach the airport in Cold Bay for medical evacuations.

Bernhardt noted in his 2019 decision that there had been over 70 medevacs from King Cove to Cold Bay, Anchorage or Seattle in the previous six years and that the U.S. Coast Guard handled about 20 medevacs at a cost of about $50,000 per rescue mission."

I bet the injured/ill person and his family would prefer the short drive for help to a boat trip in bad weather. But I cannot refer you to any articles in learned journals that prove that assumption.\

Here's more

(03-16-2023 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to understand why there has been less discussion on the difference between the details provided in the articles, take a look at the length of your posts and what they primarily focus on - they are primarily litigating things unrelated to the details you ask about. If you’re most interested in my take on the difference then focus on that instead of me assuming OO has done some extra reading because he says the opposition is light on details.

This is the quadiest post of all time and a wonderful example of tribalism at work.

Ok, this is truly funny.

I notice no difference in the details that YOU claimed. I've made that clear. You're right that there's no discussion about that because you made a claim, and then declined to support it. That's on you, not me. I can't focus on what you refuse to present.

Do you even realize that you outed yourself??

You complained about the brevity of the Fox piece... and then presented Times as somehow providing more meaningful information.... and then you attack OO because while BOTH of them claim some environmental concerns, no such evidence of those concerns are mentioned in either??

We seem to agree that such information would be valuable and meaningful... but you're more interested in feeling attacked, attacking ANYTHING that doesn't support your world view (in this case, Fox bad, Times good) and trying to play 'gotcha' than to have an intelligent conversation.

I didn't grow up on twitter. My life has never been constrained by 144 characters. Live with it

Tribalism? You're not a tribe... you're an entitled and arrogant prick. If that is your tribe, then I guess yes this is tribalism. Otherwise, I'm just pointing out your BS. I don't have to do that with many other members of 'your tribe'.

I never attacked OO because of the article he posted - I criticized Fox News and even levied a similar criticism at the Times.

I criticized OO for saying that the opponents didn’t provide details on their opposition when it is pretty clear he hasn’t actually looked to see what opponents have said on the matter. You’ve lost the thread here, once again, and resort (once again) to personal attacks.

Ham, if you are convinced I’m an “entitled and arrogant prick,” why don’t you put me on ignore? Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you feel compelled to literally jump into the fray, especially in this instance where you didn’t add anything close to meaningful in your first post - you didn’t speak to any of the content or topics but rather what knee jerk reactions the left likes to have. I think you’re letting your time in the Spin Room spill over here, frankly.

(03-16-2023 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if it is because of his engineering background or not, but Lad is always quick to demand proof in the form of published studies. Sometimes I get the feeling that if I said it was nice weather today, he would want to know my sources for that statement. Could I please refer him to where I read that?

I was an academ at Rice, and a businessman later in life. Maybe that is a source of difference in how we make/take statements - I look more to the people involved, I think.

In this case, I go to the most likely reasons for the positions taken, since no reasons were provided or defended. Basically, on one side we have Alaskan people who are concerned that medical emergencies will arise at a time when the local airport is unusable. These people seem to be mostly Alaskans who are concerned for the people of the area. On the other side, we have "environmentalists", who probably are from all over, and who are mainly concerned in this case with landing sites for marsh birds.

Yes, if the road needed was a four lane super highway hundreds of miles long, or if the wetlands to protected were 500 acres instead of 300,000, I would give more credence to to environmental worries. It's not either. If one side needs proof that their concerns have merit, it is the environmentalists. I think we all concede that people sometimes need to be evacuated for medical help.

The point of the story is that this road was set up, and now Biden is backing out of it. Why?

The headline and first paragraph of the story I linked give us some clues:

"Biden admin buckles to environmental groups, makes sudden reversal on key land decision

The Biden administration announced late Tuesday that it would reverse a Trump-era land swap deal facilitating the construction, in an Alaska wilderness area, of a potentially life-saving road opposed by environmental groups."


Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump>

Here is an article on AP (not Fox) that doesn't mention Trump:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art...efuge-road

Here is another factoid of interest:
"The King Cove airport experiences frequent bad weather, making travel difficult. Residents for decades have sought a safer road to reach the airport in Cold Bay for medical evacuations.

Bernhardt noted in his 2019 decision that there had been over 70 medevacs from King Cove to Cold Bay, Anchorage or Seattle in the previous six years and that the U.S. Coast Guard handled about 20 medevacs at a cost of about $50,000 per rescue mission."

I bet the injured/ill person and his family would prefer the short drive for help to a boat trip in bad weather. But I cannot refer you to any articles in learned journals that prove that assumption.\

Here's more

You misunderstand - I’m not asking for a study. I’m asking for backup for your claim that the opposition are not providing details on how the work would have negative impacts. That type of claim requires some sort of backup, and I’m trying to understand where it came from.

I brought up studies because I have some understanding of how civil engineering works, and it’s very common to have to complete an environmental assessment when developing infrastructure projects.

That all said, I took some time this evening to google this topic a bit more deeply. A few things jumped out:

1) the proposed land swap has been discussed for quite some time and was rejected by the Obama admin in 2013 (https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/long-run...rehearing/

2) that environmental study I said likely occurred did occur, and opponents do point to specific reasons to oppose to swap and road development: https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2022/08/...or-nature/

Whether those cons outweigh the pros is a whole other question. You seem to have a natural inclination to assume the pros outweigh the cons. That’s fine - I just don’t think one should assume the proponent or opponents aren’t backing up their positions with details because a Fox News article (or NYTimes article) is light on said details.

(03-16-2023 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That all said, I took some time this evening to google this topic a bit more deeply. A few things jumped out:
1) the proposed land swap has been discussed for quite some time and was rejected by the Obama admin in 2013 (https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/long-run...rehearing/

That would tend to make me support the land swap deal.

Quote:2) that environmental study I said likely occurred did occur, and opponents do point to specific reasons to oppose to swap and road development: https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2022/08/...or-nature/

I would call those "reasons" more hyperbolic hypotheticals than actual concrete reasons.

Have we totally taken leave of common sense?

(03-16-2023 11:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That all said, I took some time this evening to google this topic a bit more deeply. A few things jumped out:
1) the proposed land swap has been discussed for quite some time and was rejected by the Obama admin in 2013 (https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/long-run...rehearing/

That would tend to make me support the land swap deal.

Quote:2) that environmental study I said likely occurred did occur, and opponents do point to specific reasons to oppose to swap and road development: https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2022/08/...or-nature/

I would call those "reasons" more hyperbolic hypotheticals than actual concrete reasons.

Have we totally taken leave of common sense?

I’m not going to dig into the Fish and Wildlife study, just don’t have that much time to study this specific issue (and it is what that article cites), but I did think the claim that this was all a ruse by the fishing industry to be pretty laughable and hyperbolic.

Here's what I'd do. We have gobs and gobs of federal land, most if not all of which was taken from indigenous people, who would probably manage it better than the federales.

So give a lot of that land back to those indigenous people and let them live and work it in their old tribal ways, in harmony with nature. If you gave the land in question here to the Aleuts and Indians who live in King Cove, I'm reasonably certain that 1) the road would get built, and 2) the stewardship over the remaining land would improve dramatically. This is an issue because a bunch of bureaucrats want to prove that they can. They probably don't give a damn about anything but grabbing power.

(03-16-2023 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  2) that environmental study I said likely occurred did occur, and opponents do point to specific reasons to oppose to swap and road development: https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2022/08/...or-nature/

I read your link with The Wildlife News (any chance they may be biased?).
Some things jump out:

Jewell found that” Increased human traffic and noise, changed hydrology of the wetlands, pollution runoff, and introduced contaminants and invasive species would despoil the isthmus.

So, apparently the Aleut fishermen in the village would drive back and forth on the 11 mile road, releasing invasive species and making a ton of noise, much of which would disturb birds and animals hundreds of miles away. How much changed hydrology and/or pollution runoff? I don't see the graphs. This is basically a charge of any change is a bad change, if it means that .0000001% (est) of the land is affected in any way from the way it was in 2000 BC.

Other Alaskan native groups support the land exchange, likely because they believe they could use the precedent to further their own economic interests.

LIKELY? Is this a scientific study or a character assassination by opponents of the road?

However, many wilderness advocates believe the real reason for the road is to carry fish captured by the commercial fishing fleet in King Cove to planes in Cold Bay for rapid shipment to markets.

BELIEVE? Same question.

I'll tell you what I believe is likely: that the environmentalists would oppose the road even if it was limited to ambulances only.

Currently, access to Cold Bay’s runway is by boat or from a smaller airstrip in King Cove. But in stormy weather, travel by any means, including by road, is often dangerous and difficult.

No doubt true in all its generalities. But in stormy weather, who would prefer to go to sea? or to fly from an airport with no lights? Probably not the Coast Guard, who would be the ones called on.

(03-16-2023 09:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I criticized OO for saying that the opponents didn’t provide details on their opposition when it is pretty clear he hasn’t actually looked to see what opponents have said on the matter.

Did I say that? Where?

Even with your links, I don't see many details being provided?

(03-17-2023 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Other Alaskan native groups support the land exchange, likely because they believe they could use the precedent to further their own economic interests.

So what? Haven't we screwed those people enough already? What would it hurt to give them more land and more freedom to further their own economic interests?

My guess would be that if you turned the affected area over to the Aleuts, Eskimos, and/or Indians in King Bay, the road would get built and the environment of the area would improve dramatically because they would manage the area better than the federal bureaucrats.

(03-17-2023 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 09:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I criticized OO for saying that the opponents didn’t provide details on their opposition when it is pretty clear he hasn’t actually looked to see what opponents have said on the matter.

Did I say that? Where?

Even with your links, I don't see many details being provided?

Quote:My opinion is 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. The people proposing the road at least can show a positive impact on human safety.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-874891-post-18...id18847003

(03-17-2023 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  2) that environmental study I said likely occurred did occur, and opponents do point to specific reasons to oppose to swap and road development: https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2022/08/...or-nature/

I read your link with The Wildlife News (any chance they may be biased?).
Some things jump out:

Jewell found that” Increased human traffic and noise, changed hydrology of the wetlands, pollution runoff, and introduced contaminants and invasive species would despoil the isthmus.

So, apparently the Aleut fishermen in the village would drive back and forth on the 11 mile road, releasing invasive species and making a ton of noise, much of which would disturb birds and animals hundreds of miles away. How much changed hydrology and/or pollution runoff? I don't see the graphs. This is basically a charge of any change is a bad change, if it means that .0000001% (est) of the land is affected in any way from the way it was in 2000 BC.

Other Alaskan native groups support the land exchange, likely because they believe they could use the precedent to further their own economic interests.

LIKELY? Is this a scientific study or a character assassination by opponents of the road?

However, many wilderness advocates believe the real reason for the road is to carry fish captured by the commercial fishing fleet in King Cove to planes in Cold Bay for rapid shipment to markets.

BELIEVE? Same question.

I'll tell you what I believe is likely: that the environmentalists would oppose the road even if it was limited to ambulances only.

Currently, access to Cold Bay’s runway is by boat or from a smaller airstrip in King Cove. But in stormy weather, travel by any means, including by road, is often dangerous and difficult.

No doubt true in all its generalities. But in stormy weather, who would prefer to go to sea? or to fly from an airport with no lights? Probably not the Coast Guard, who would be the ones called on.

That link is absolutely biased - it is being written by opponents of the deal!

I provided it because it was info that I found that helped to fill in the gaps that the Fox News and NYTimes article left. Both of those articles didn't dig deeply into the opposition, which was (and still is) frustrating. It's hard to make an informed opinion when there isn't a full picture of the situation. As I mentioned, at least the Times provided some extra information and pointed to the concern being focused on impacts to wetlands.

To your comments about the graphs and details - as I mentioned, the article points to a study completed by Fish and Wildlife. I'm not invested enough in this to go through and read that document. I was hopeful that you had some insight based on what you were posting earlier, but I guess not.

(03-17-2023 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2023 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 09:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I criticized OO for saying that the opponents didn’t provide details on their opposition when it is pretty clear he hasn’t actually looked to see what opponents have said on the matter.

Did I say that? Where?
Even with your links, I don't see many details being provided?

Quote:My opinion is 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. The people proposing the road at least can show a positive impact on human safety.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-874891-post-18...id18847003

"frustratingly low" =/= "didn't provide"

(03-17-2023 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-17-2023 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 09:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I criticized OO for saying that the opponents didn’t provide details on their opposition when it is pretty clear he hasn’t actually looked to see what opponents have said on the matter.

Did I say that? Where?

Even with your links, I don't see many details being provided?

Quote:My opinion is 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. The people proposing the road at least can show a positive impact on human safety.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-874891-post-18...id18847003

So your complaint about me was that I responded in kind to you AFTER you made this statement (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) 9 posts earlier?

Honestly, I guess you cannot tell when I am mocking you by responding in kind.

Still, it is good to know how you can be triggered by posts not yet made.

Still, the topic was Biden reversing himself. There is no lack of data on that topic.