Prudhoe Oil To Be Shut Down for months
Ralph Nader
Good. Shut it down forever! Alaska does not need the blight on the
wilderness and polluton just for a few extra tax $$ revenue and the PFD
checks for Alaskans. I am sure all Alaskans will gladly give up their $$ so
the Caribou can be saved and the Tundra not have one more drop of oil
splashed on it, destroying the environment !
The sooner the pipeline is removed the better !
You
"Ralph Nader" <823...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.king5.com/business/stories/NW_080706BUBbp_oilfieldshutdownalaskaJM.
> 107a8d58.html
>
> Good. Shut it down forever! Alaska does not need the blight on the
> wilderness and polluton just for a few extra tax $$ revenue and the PFD
> checks for Alaskans. I am sure all Alaskans will gladly give up their $$ so
> the Caribou can be saved and the Tundra not have one more drop of oil
> splashed on it, destroying the environment !
> The sooner the pipeline is removed the better !
>
>
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on......... it isn't your oil,
it is ours, and we will sell it however we want.......
bookburn
"Ralph Nader" <823...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d78d24$0$23699$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com...
1. BP found corrosion in the pipes on the Slope, so it's shutting
down while doing maintenance.
2. Shutting down sends a message to the public and its legislature,
that the oil is going to run out so better give it the gas.
3. Alaskans do have mixed feelings about the PF and PFD, that the
big bucks in the bank is going nowhere and if we aren't using it,
what good is more of it going to do?
4. Maybe the question we should be asking is, should Alaska be
assertive about developing resources for local use, subsidiary
industries, and infra-structures, using some of the PF to do it?
bookburn
kevin
>
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on......... it isn't your oil,
> it is ours, and we will sell it however we want.......
I think they were being sarcastic.
Dennis P. Harris
Nader" <823...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good. Shut it down forever!
not even a good job of trolling. duh.
Jim Booth
before oil production started!
JIM
Floyd L. Davidson
>Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>before oil production started!
A true fact, with absolutely no significance at all.
The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk. And ask
the folks at Nuiqsut today if construction of the Alpine field
has had no effect on caribou!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Sturdly
create at least one gas pipeline.
"Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:44d8...@news.acsalaska.net...
Jan Flora
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
> >before oil production started!
>
> A true fact, with absolutely no significance at all.
>
> The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
> Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk. And ask
> the folks at Nuiqsut today if construction of the Alpine field
> has had no effect on caribou!
The caribou that stand in front of the cooling fans on the oil
rigs are all bulls. Cows & cows with calves don't get anywhere
near the rigs.
I find it curious that BP is shutting down Prudhoe right now,
as they've known about the pipe corrosion for many years.
It isn't political, is it??? Heaven forfend... We've known
that the pipe would corrode from acids and stuff since they
first built the pipeline, and BP is acting all surprised that
their pipes are corroded. Yeah, right. Timing is everything.
BP is hoping that most Alaskans are too busy fishing and wanking
to pay attention to silly shit like oil politics and what the
Governor is trying to get away with. (What's his cut?)
Jan
--
The way to a man's heart is between the fourth and the fifth rib.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87zmeep...@apaflo.com>,
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>> >before oil production started!
>>
>> A true fact, with absolutely no significance at all.
>>
>> The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
>> Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk. And ask
>> the folks at Nuiqsut today if construction of the Alpine field
>> has had no effect on caribou!
>
>The caribou that stand in front of the cooling fans on the oil
>rigs are all bulls. Cows & cows with calves don't get anywhere
>near the rigs.
>
>I find it curious that BP is shutting down Prudhoe right now,
>as they've known about the pipe corrosion for many years.
>
>It isn't political, is it??? Heaven forfend...
Is that like asking "Will the price go up now?"... ;-)
>We've known
>that the pipe would corrode from acids and stuff since they
>first built the pipeline, and BP is acting all surprised that
>their pipes are corroded. Yeah, right. Timing is everything.
>
>BP is hoping that most Alaskans are too busy fishing and wanking
>to pay attention to silly shit like oil politics and what the
>Governor is trying to get away with. (What's his cut?)
I had an interesting conversation a couple weeks ago with a
fellow who like me is a "nobody". His brother, however, spends
his days working at the top end of "government". I don't want
to identify him, so that's as close as I'll come. Just say his
brother is, or so we would think, a significant player.
Every third statement out of this guy's mouth amounted to "Don't
*ever* forget that the oil companies ultimately control
*everything*." I would say, "We could do ...", he would comment
on how government could do that, I would say something about the
benefits, he would pointedly state that the oil companies
control everything. And so went the conversation.
He was basically saying that talking to (or about the
capabilities of) the City of Barrow, to the North Slope Borough,
to the State of Alaska, or to the Federal Goverment is a waste
of time. If you don't convince Big Oil, *it* *ain't* *gonna*
*happen*.
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87zmeep...@apaflo.com...
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
> >before oil production started!
>
> A true fact, with absolutely no significance at all.
>
> The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
> Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk. And ask
> the folks at Nuiqsut today if construction of the Alpine field
> has had no effect on caribou!
Yes Floyd.....*more* caribou. No significance at all!!! What a joke....it
has *all* the signifcance in the world.
Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds.
JIM
Jim Booth
"Sturdly" <Stu...@ACS.net> wrote in message
news:12difgm...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have confirmed this as "true" In a effort to increase wildlife we need
to
> create at least one gas pipeline.
Not a bad idea.....how about starting with ANWR.
JIM
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87zmeep...@apaflo.com...
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>> >before oil production started!
>>
>> A true fact, with absolutely no significance at all.
Actually, what you meant to say is correct, but specifically what you
did say is dead wrong:
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease
in use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral
movements (Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in
response to intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to
Kuparuk oil field region over the past 3 decades."
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
The herd that frequents Prudhoe Bay is indeed larger than it
was, but there are in fact *fewer* "caribou around Prudhoe Bay
than before oil production started".
That is why there is no significance to what you say.
>> The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
>> Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk. And ask
>> the folks at Nuiqsut today if construction of the Alpine field
>> has had no effect on caribou!
>
>Yes Floyd.....*more* caribou. No significance at all!!! What a joke....it
>has *all* the signifcance in the world.
Gawd are are you dense!
The Central Arctic Caribou herd calves across a rather vast
stretch of the North Slope's coastal plane... well over 100 miles
wide by much more than 100 miles deep. And the herd is *small*
too, with a maximum of something like 30,000 animals.
The fact that Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk have destroyed a very
small part of the herd's calving areas is simply of no
significance to the herd, because there are vast alternatives
and few caribou to compete with.
Compare that to the Porcupine herd, which is huge at a minimum
with 120,000 animals, and uses only a very small area for
nurturing calves. That areas is less than 50 miles wide and in
a place where the coastal plain is 15-45 miles deep. Unlike the
Central Arctic herd, the Porcupine herd has no other place to go
if their prime calving area is developed for oil production.
The above of course has been documented and cited by virtually
*every* caribou biologist that has ever done field work on the
North Slope.
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm
You can skip all of that and just read the conclusions:
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm
>Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds.
Last time you tried to tell us what a caribou study meant, you
claimed the listed reasons (unknown data) for doing the study
were the conclusions of the study. With these two posts we can
see that your understanding of caribou science hasn't improved
at all in the past ten years or so.
Floyd L. Davidson
Is there a single gready Repugnican idea that you don't suck on?
Jim Booth
> The herd that frequents Prudhoe Bay is indeed larger than it
> was, but there are in fact *fewer* "caribou around Prudhoe Bay
> than before oil production started".
Now let me see if I have this correct......you agree that the caribou count
around Prudhoe Bay *has* increased since oil development....then you say
there are *frewer*! Ahhh Floyd, make up your mind....are there more or less
caribou? You can't talk out of the side of you mouth and make sence. Let me
see.....more but fewer. I'm laughing again Floyd!
>
> >Yes Floyd.....*more* caribou. No significance at all!!! What a joke....it
> >has *all* the signifcance in the world.
>
> Gawd are are you dense!
Nooooo, me thinks you had better read your most profound statement , "more
but fewer" claim and then look in a mirror and ask yourself....who is
dense!!!!
>
> >Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds.
>
> Last time you tried to tell us what a caribou study meant, you
> claimed the listed reasons (unknown data) for doing the study
> were the conclusions of the study. With these two posts we can
> see that your understanding of caribou science hasn't improved
> at all in the past ten years or so.
Ahhhh Floyd.....who is claiming "more but fewer"? You *do* have a difficult
time don't you.
JIM (knows the difference between more and fewer!)
Jim Booth
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >"Sturdly" <Stu...@ACS.net> wrote in message
> >news:12difgm...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I have confirmed this as "true" In a effort to increase wildlife we
need
> >to
> >> create at least one gas pipeline.
> >
> >Not a bad idea.....how about starting with ANWR.
> >
> >JIM
>
> Is there a single gready Repugnican idea that you don't suck on?
Now then Floyd....how do your come up with "gready"?
Is it because I happen to agree with the North Slope Borough (where you
live)? Or I agree with the major Native Organizations? Or I agree with the
only inhabitants living on ANWR? Or I agree with around 80% of Alaskans? Or
I agree with *BOTH* the Republicans and Democrats in our state legislature?
Explain!
JIM ( Gready??????? think not!)
Eugene Miya
>Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>before oil production started!
Ahhh, another one of those "more" is "better" thinkers.
Cancer as growth logic.
--
kevin
>
> The significant fact is that caribou no longer calve at Prudhoe
> Bay, or anywhere near the infrastructure for Kuparuk.
Asexual reproduction?
Floyd L. Davidson
>> The herd that frequents Prudhoe Bay is indeed larger than it
>> was, but there are in fact *fewer* "caribou around Prudhoe Bay
>> than before oil production started".
>
>Now let me see if I have this correct......you agree that the caribou count
>around Prudhoe Bay *has* increased since oil development....then you say
>there are *frewer*! Ahhh Floyd, make up your mind....are there more or less
>caribou? You can't talk out of the side of you mouth and make sence. Let me
>see.....more but fewer. I'm laughing again Floyd!
"Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds."
Who said that Jim? But just who did and who *didn't* check?
Your statements are all factually wrong. Mine aren't simply
because I did in fact check the surveys:
An exponential decline in the occurrence of caribou as density
of roads increased (Fig. 4.6) (Nellemann and Cameron 1998)
underscores the sensitivity of the females during the calving
period. The probable consequence is reduced access to preferred
habitats (Bishop and Cameron 1990, Nellemann and Cameron 1996,
1998).
...
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>>
>> >Yes Floyd.....*more* caribou. No significance at all!!! What a joke....it
>> >has *all* the signifcance in the world.
>>
>> Gawd are are you dense!
>
>Nooooo, me thinks you had better read your most profound statement , "more
>but fewer" claim and then look in a mirror and ask yourself....who is
>dense!!!!
Dense doesn't seem to do you justice...
>JIM (knows the difference between more and fewer!)
You can't tell the difference between more here and fewer there?
Jim Booth
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >> The herd that frequents Prudhoe Bay is indeed larger than it
> >> was, but there are in fact *fewer* "caribou around Prudhoe Bay
> >> than before oil production started".
> >
> >Now let me see if I have this correct......you agree that the caribou
count
> >around Prudhoe Bay *has* increased since oil development....then you say
> >there are *frewer*! Ahhh Floyd, make up your mind....are there more or
less
> >caribou? You can't talk out of the side of you mouth and make sence. Let
me
> >see.....more but fewer. I'm laughing again Floyd!
>
> "Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds."
>
> Who said that Jim? But just who did and who *didn't* check?
> Your statements are all factually wrong. Mine aren't simply
> because I did in fact check the surveys:
>
>
caribou in that herd than pre-pipeline days. I'm so sorry you just can't
grasp the fact...but it is fact. Where or where not the caribou calve is no
importance....what is import is that there *IS* more caribou in that herd.
Check the counts again and stop making these false statements!
Now then.....this time....CHECK before you continue to make such a fool of
yourself.
JIM (yes Floyd....I have check and I'm clearly correct)
Jim Booth
"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:44da602b$1@darkstar...
important to them.
JIM
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87psf9i...@apaflo.com...
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >> The herd that frequents Prudhoe Bay is indeed larger than it
>> >> was, but there are in fact *fewer* "caribou around Prudhoe Bay
>> >> than before oil production started".
>> >
>> >Now let me see if I have this correct......you agree that the caribou count
>> >around Prudhoe Bay *has* increased since oil development....then you say
>> >there are *frewer*! Ahhh Floyd, make up your mind....are there more or less
>> >caribou? You can't talk out of the side of you mouth and make sence. Let me
>> >see.....more but fewer. I'm laughing again Floyd!
>>
>> "Guess you need to check the surveys for caribou herds."
>>
>> Who said that Jim? But just who did and who *didn't* check?
>> Your statements are all factually wrong. Mine aren't simply
>> because I did in fact check the surveys:
>>
>>
>Ahhhh Floyd....*EVERY* survey and caribou counts states that there are more
>caribou in that herd than pre-pipeline days.
And not *one* survey says there are "there are *more* caribou
around Prudhoe Bay than before oil production started!", which
is what you claimed. There *are* more caribou *south* of
Prudhoe Bay. And there are more caribou *east* of Prudhoe Bay.
And there are more caribou *west* of Prudhoe bay. Unless of course
by "around Prudhoe" you mean everywhere except Prudhoe itself!
What? You didn't actually *read* the survey reports?
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>I'm so sorry you just can't
>grasp the fact...but it is fact. Where or where not the caribou calve is no
>importance....what is import is that there *IS* more caribou in that herd.
Funny you should make such a dumb statement Jim. All the
caribou biologist say exactly the opposite. If you had actually
read any of the reports, you would be aware of that.
>Check the counts again and stop making these false statements!
Lets see you quote even *one* biologist that supports what you
claim!
>Now then.....this time....CHECK before you continue to make such a fool of
>yourself.
>
>JIM (yes Floyd....I have check and I'm clearly correct)
Jim Booth lies again. I *quoted* the reports that he hasn't
read!
Here's another quote for you Jim,
An exponential decline in the occurrence of caribou as
density of roads increased (Fig. 4.6) (Nellemann and
Cameron 1998) underscores the sensitivity of the females
during the calving period. The probable consequence is
reduced access to preferred habitats (Bishop and Cameron
1990, Nellemann and Cameron 1996, 1998).
The significance of course is that they have also found that
when calf production for a herd is lower than about 70%, the
herd goes into decline. 70% calf production for the Central
Arctic herd does not depend on the areas around Kuparuk or
Prudhoe. On the other hand, there is only a single area of ANWR
where the huge porcupine herd reaches 70% calf production...
and that happens to be exactly where the USGS claims there is
most likely to be oil.
Floyd L. Davidson
Pretty funny Jim. Tell us who are these "locals" that use the
Central Arctic caribou herd for subsistence?
Most of the animals harvested in that herd are taken along the
Dalton highway, by *sport* hunters from Fairbanks.
Local subsistence harvest probably doesn't amount to more than
100-200 animals on a good year. The total harvest is only 200-900
per year.
Compare that, for example, to the 2000-3000 animals harvested
for subsistence from the Teshekpuk Lake herd in an average year,
almost totally by subsistence hunters from Anuktuvuk Pass, Barrow,
Atqasuk and Wainwright.
Guess you really *should* have read a few reports rather than just
making up stuff, eh?
jbohren
I was at Oliktok Point in June and July and saw quite a few cows with young
calves. There seemed to be several cows and calves around the Deadhorse
west gate as well as just west of KOC.
We also had caribou bedding down under Oliktok's old Tropo dishes.
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>I was at Oliktok Point in June and July and saw quite a few cows with young
>calves. There seemed to be several cows and calves around the Deadhorse
>west gate as well as just west of KOC.
>
>We also had caribou bedding down under Oliktok's old Tropo dishes.
I'm not sure how "built up" Oliktok is, and the roads and road
traffic are what seems to bother the cows.
Note also that "around the west gate" doesn't mean much. The problem
is that the numbers within 2 km of roads declines dramatically. So
if you see a lot of caribou 1-2 miles down away, that is typical. But
they typically don't cross the roads, and become divided between one
side or the other of the roads.
Of course there are odd instances where people can observe the
opposite actually happening, but Cameron et al have about 30
years of various studies, all of which confirm that is what
happens.
Hmmm... I recall from a circuit layout card about 15 years ago that
the main drag at Oliktok has a name. The FAA had a street address
there, that was hard to forget:
1000 Godawful Way
Oliktok, Alaska
Jim Booth
> And not *one* survey says there are "there are *more* caribou
> around Prudhoe Bay than before oil production started!", which
> is what you claimed. There *are* more caribou *south* of
> Prudhoe Bay. And there are more caribou *east* of Prudhoe Bay.
> And there are more caribou *west* of Prudhoe bay. Unless of course
> by "around Prudhoe" you mean everywhere except Prudhoe itself!
I guess that since you just can't comprehend the fact....yes Floyd it is a
fact....that the caribou herd had *MORE* caribou in the herd than just
before the pipeline being built makes it impossible to inform you.
Floyd.....EVERY SINGLE CARIBOU SURVEY clearly states the estimated number
each year it counts the heard. Check it out.
Now then, where that herd decides to calf.....stay......wander is up to the
herd. That changes from year to year. Take a look at the so called caribou
calving area in ANWR (for an example) where oil drill will some day occur.
Anyway.....in the last decade or so 60 % of the time the caribou have NOT
calved in that area!
Another fact.....more humans in the United States give birth in Hospitals
than at the turn of the 20th century. However, the population has increased!
How would you like to spin that fact Floyd...?
Barrow has a fish and game office.....go look at the counts for yourself.
Stop the lies....there are more caribou in that herd now than just before
the pipeline started being built. Fact Floyd......just the facts!
JIM (tires of Floyds myth that there are less caribou in the herd now !)
Jim Booth
to 100-200 per year! Then you say I'm making up the locals use that herd for
subsistence? Excuse me Floyd.....that is what I mean about you telling
lies......first the is a subsistence and then you say I'm making it up.
What goes on with other caribou herds in Alaska is not what is being
discussed.....Guess we could then say that 100% of the Nelchina herd is for
subsistence....If one wanted to spin a little.
I'm sure enough people are chuckling over your *ya buts* right now.....try
to keep on track Floyd. I realize you have a very difficult time when one
clearly proves you wrong....just swallow the fact you have been proved
wrong...........AGAIN!
JIM ( clearly correct in all issues....again)
Jim Booth
Eugene Miya
Tim Smith <admini...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2006 15:22:35 -0700, eug...@cse.ucsc.edu
>for caribou management.
Who management?
You mean economists?
You mean a Lotka-Volterra model?
>I've heard caribou referred to as tundra maggots
>but the cancer analogy seems harsh.
Not my analogy.
>Is there some reason to think that a smaller
>Central Arctic caribou herd would be better?
So who said smaller?
Do you have some sort of forgone conclusion in your thinking?
Most of the people I know are trying to handle some version of
equilibrium. Before any big external changes.
It's how mathematical models work. The = sign is the most powerful
mathematical operator for lgoic.
--
jbohren
The Kuparuk field is criss-crossed with roads- check out google maps. STP
and a several drill sites are within a mile of Oliktok. There is absolutely
no way caribou can get there without crossing roads. I saw about 20 'bou
cross the spine road about 2 miles east of KOC and about 1/2 mile east of a
drill site and intersection. There were cows and calves in that herd.
Is it all roads that caribou won't cross or is it just the oilfield roads?
I have pictures from the road at Cape Lisburne's top camp of a caibou bull
that ran down the road for several miles. I've had to stop for caribou on
the Alcan and on the road to top camp at Cape Liz. The hills surrounding
top camp are just covered with caribou trails.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what the
preservationists and what the (ab)users are saying....
Eugene Miya
>>>>Cancer as growth logic.
>>>More-is-better is a pretty widely accepted model
>>>for caribou management.
>>Who management?
In article <vh0nd2t7eemjl3v96...@4ax.com>,
Tim Smith <admini...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>No, that would be for owls.
OK, which agencys?
>>You mean economists?
>
>I mean wildlife managers.
Post a name.
OK, well I was with Boyd, the BLM guy about a month an a half a go.
And I never heard any of this more-is-better from him.
>>You mean a Lotka-Volterra model?
>
>I mean a sustained yield model as required by the
>Alaska constitution.
Oh political and economic, not biological.
You don't know what a Lotka-Volterra model is do you?
>>>I've heard caribou referred to as tundra maggots
>>>but the cancer analogy seems harsh.
>>
>>Not my analogy.
>>
>>>Is there some reason to think that a smaller
>>>Central Arctic caribou herd would be better?
>>
>>So who said smaller?
>
>I thought you did, "Ahhh, another one of those
>"more" is "better" thinkers. Cancer as growth
>logic."
That's close enough and you should be able to see that I didn't use smaller.
You did.
>>Do you have some sort of forgone conclusion in your thinking?
>
>Yes, I think it is a forgone conclusion that the
>state is required to manage caribou according to
>the constitutional mandate for sustained yield. In
which article, sect. etc.?
>general, more-is-better if you are trying to
>maximize human harvest.
Human harvest is in the AK state Constitution?
>>Most of the people I know are trying to handle some version of
>>equilibrium. Before any big external changes.
>>It's how mathematical models work. The = sign is the most powerful
>>mathematical operator for lgoic.
>
>The state managers who manage Central Arctic herd
Like whom?
>caribou are required to manage to produce a
>harvest and regulatory policy usually calls for
>maximum sustained yield for species like caribou.
>Your equilibrium model would be more appropriate
>for species that are not exploited by humans.
It's not my model. That's the biological community's model to
understand population.
>There are few examples of arctic caribou herds
>remaining at constant numbers over long periods of
>time and the Central Arctic herd is no exception.
I didn't say constant.
>Whatever negative impacts Prudhoe Bay development
>might have had on the CAH, it didn't stop it from
>growing. This fact has lead to the floating of
>some very convoluted arguments by those wanting to
>conclude that arctic oil development is
>universally bad for caribou, as we see in this
>thread.
I'm not getting any details from you except vague policy.
I have now spent 6 summer field seasons helping friends
who do professional ecology for the UAF next to the TAPS.
Now I will say that I can't agree with everything my friends do
in their experimental paradigms (their peer review process is
a bit different from CS's).
But I am on the periphery of these areas and people.
And I know some of the BP, Alyeska guys, and Veco guys.
You aren't helping them. If you would like to straighten out
some of the convoluted signal that you are sending me:
1) answer a few of my very basic questions
2) don't use words which I didn't use. Look back up there where you used "owls"
I'll leave it at 2 comments for now.
--
Eugene Miya
wrote:
>> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>> >before oil production started!
"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:44da602b$1@darkstar...
>> Ahhh, another one of those "more" is "better" thinkers.
>> Cancer as growth logic.
In article <44da...@news.acsalaska.net>, Jim Booth <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>Yes it is Eugene.....the locals use that herd for subsistence. It is very
>important to them.
The locals being?
Take your time.
I'll deal with Tim first.
--
Floyd L. Davidson
Whoa, you've missed the entire point. Let me back up and hit the
highlights again.
Caribou cows become increasingly skittish as they approach
calving, and then gradually (as the calves are nurtured) return
to "normal".
On the opposite side of the coin, when caribou begin a migration
the cows are *not* skittish, and will follow a leading bull
anywhere. It happens that a few select old bulls lead the whole
migration, and *they* are the skittish ones! (Granted, skittish
in a different way.)
Your statements below indicate that you are mixing observations
under distinctly different circumstances as if they relate to
each other and are the same. They are *not* equivalent.
>The Kuparuk field is criss-crossed with roads- check out google maps. STP
>and a several drill sites are within a mile of Oliktok. There is absolutely
>no way caribou can get there without crossing roads. I saw about 20 'bou
>cross the spine road about 2 miles east of KOC and about 1/2 mile east of a
>drill site and intersection. There were cows and calves in that herd.
An unqualified observation that does not give the detail
required to make use of it in this discussion. Do you mean
there were 3-4 week old calves, or 3 month old calves?
The observations that caribou biologists have very carefully
recorded suggest that cows just before calving and for perhaps a
month after calving will *not* go there. Over the long run, the
effect has been dramatic simply because caribou seem to have
multi-year memory of geography.
Here is an interesting graphic. Look at Figure 4.7 at this URL
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
That shows the effects on calving locations for the Central
Arctic Caribou herd as Kuparuk was built up. (Also note the
absence of concentrated calving anywhere close to the Prudhoe
field during all of that time period too.)
>Is it all roads that caribou won't cross or is it just the oilfield roads?
>I have pictures from the road at Cape Lisburne's top camp of a caibou bull
>that ran down the road for several miles.
Heh heh. I don't expect that bull was ready to calve? I also
suspect it had no options, given that on much of that road it is
either over a cliff on one side, or climb a cliff on the other,
and we aren't talking about mountain goats!
>I've had to stop for caribou on
>the Alcan and on the road to top camp at Cape Liz. The hills surrounding
>top camp are just covered with caribou trails.
Which has *nothing* to do with this discussion.
>I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what the
>preservationists and what the (ab)users are saying....
You have to pay attention to *detail*. It *is* important.
Migrating caribou play "follow the leader", and all but the lead
bulls assume the trail ahead is the right one. The lead bulls
have strange instincts and multi-year memory to guide them. If
they see something that wasn't there before, they might just
turn and go a different way. They will cross roads filled with
traffic and apparently not bat an eye. And something new that
upsets them this year, will not bother them in 2 or 3 years.
But cows change as they approach calving time. They very
selectively head for specific areas to calve, apparently based
on several factors but dominated by available nutrition and lack
of predators.
The significance of caribou cows being caused to avoid an area
they would otherwise use is that it can reduce productivity of
the herd. Nutrition for calves is the primary factor in
productivity rates. With the Central Arctic caribou herd it has
been documented that at production rates above 70% the herd is
stable or growing, and that at lower rates it goes into decline.
The fact that caribou in August or September will cross roads to
avoid insects when they try to find areas with more wind, simply
is *not* an argument that the exact same roads in June and July
did not separate significant numbers of calves from the high
nutrition areas that would lead to higher production rates *if*
no other high nutrition areas are available.
The point with the Central Arctic herd is that is it small and
has many, and large, areas for calving. The point with the
Porcupine herd is that it is huge and has exactly one relatively
small area suitable. (Production rates for calves nurtured
outside that area are closer to 40% than the mentioned 70%.)
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes it is Eugene.....the locals use that herd for subsistence. It is very
>> >important to them.
>>
>> Pretty funny Jim. Tell us who are these "locals" that use the
>> Central Arctic caribou herd for subsistence?
>>
>> Most of the animals harvested in that herd are taken along the
>> Dalton highway, by *sport* hunters from Fairbanks.
>>
>> Local subsistence harvest probably doesn't amount to more than
>> 100-200 animals on a good year. The total harvest is only 200-900
>> per year.
>>
>> Compare that, for example, to the 2000-3000 animals harvested
>> for subsistence from the Teshekpuk Lake herd in an average year,
>> almost totally by subsistence hunters from Anuktuvuk Pass, Barrow,
>> Atqasuk and Wainwright.
I guess I should have mentioned that those villages *are* the
"locals" you made false statements about.
>> Guess you really *should* have read a few reports rather than just
>> making up stuff, eh?
>>
>.....but Floyd.....you *just* said that subsistence harvest probably amounts
>to 100-200 per year!
Yep, and then I demonstrated how that is an insignificant number of
animals, given that they take more than 10 times that number from
other herds.
>Then you say I'm making up the locals use that herd for
>subsistence?
No Jim, I didn't say that. I said that you are *wrong* that is
"It is very important to them." They use it, but it is of very
minor importance to them.
>Excuse me Floyd.....that is what I mean about you telling
>lies......first the is a subsistence and then you say I'm making it up.
Jim, try using a little gray matter. Logically if the people of
Kaktovik harvest 25-50 animals from a 20,000+ herd, and 200-300
from a different 100,000+ herd, which one is important and which
one is not?
Note the numbers. Subsistence harvest from the CAH is small,
sport harvest is high.
It is *not* "very important" to subsistence hunters, but *is*
for the sport hunters of Fairbanks.
>What goes on with other caribou herds in Alaska is not what is being
>discussed.....Guess we could then say that 100% of the Nelchina herd is for
>subsistence....If one wanted to spin a little.
>
>I'm sure enough people are chuckling over your *ya buts* right now.....try
>to keep on track Floyd. I realize you have a very difficult time when one
>clearly proves you wrong....just swallow the fact you have been proved
>wrong...........AGAIN!
>
>JIM ( clearly correct in all issues....again)
You clearly haven't got a clue! The people you claim think the
CAH is "very" important too, actually hardly use it, and instead
commonly take ten times as many animals from the Porcupine Herd
and the Teshekpuk Lake herd.
Jim Booth
the number.....ask him where he came up with it.
JIM
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> And not *one* survey says there are "there are *more* caribou
>> around Prudhoe Bay than before oil production started!", which
>> is what you claimed. There *are* more caribou *south* of
>> Prudhoe Bay. And there are more caribou *east* of Prudhoe Bay.
>> And there are more caribou *west* of Prudhoe bay. Unless of course
>> by "around Prudhoe" you mean everywhere except Prudhoe itself!
>
>I guess that since you just can't comprehend the fact....yes Floyd it is a
>fact....that the caribou herd had *MORE* caribou in the herd than just
>before the pipeline being built makes it impossible to inform you.
>Floyd.....EVERY SINGLE CARIBOU SURVEY clearly states the estimated number
>each year it counts the heard. Check it out.
Check it out Jim, there are more caribou south of Prudhoe, more
east, and more west. The reports *clearly* state:
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
There are *fewer* caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
(You do recognize the names of the individuals cited above,
right? If not, I suggest you do a web search on Ray Cameron and
Brad Griffith, though Smith and White are not exactly unknown
either. For other readers I'll just point out that the above
cited report was written by the biologists who did the studies,
and it provides copious references to their studies.)
>Now then, where that herd decides to calf.....stay......wander is up to the
>herd. That changes from year to year.
It in fact follows a very specific pattern, which has been
extensively researched in an attempt to understand exactly what
will and what will not affect it. You really should read the
research if you want to make statements about what they do and
don't do. Reading newspapers (or Republican Party campaign
propaganda) just doesn't provide enough understanding,
especially with your reading impairment.
>Take a look at the so called caribou
>calving area in ANWR (for an example) where oil drill will some day occur.
A *very* good example of a huge group of caribou following a
very specific pattern year after year after year. (Which is to
say that what you are claiming is specifically *wrong*.)
>Anyway.....in the last decade or so 60 % of the time the caribou have NOT
>calved in that area!
Over the years from 1983 to 2001 an average of 43% of
all calves were born in the 1002 Area of ANWR. That is an
*astoundingly* high percentage in perspective. Note that in
years 1983, 2000 and 2001 weather conditions totally prevented
calving in Alaska (in 2001 the weather was so adverse there were
*no* areas that qualified as "concentrated calving" areas).
Here is a nice chart that demonstrates just how silly insinuation
is:
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm
Look at Figure 3.29, right at the top of the page.
Of course what you are trying to avoid is acceptance of the fact
that virtually the entire Porcupine Caribou Herd migrates to the
the 1002 Area of ANWR to nurture calves. They do that *every*
year.
The "prime calving" area inside the 1002 Area is clearly the
most preferred calving area, though a relatively large minority
of cows do (when weather permits) choose other areas adjacent to
the 1002 Area (virtually all in Alaska), and of course in many
years calving occurs enroute rather than at a chosen location.
Regardless, virtually *all* calves are nurtured inside the 1002
Area of ANWR, for a period of time ranging from one to two months.
The significant numbers are the survival rates for calves born
in the 1002 Area and those born outside that area.
See http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part2.htm which
graphically shows that there have been "concentrated calving
areas" inside ANWR in all years from 1983 to 1999, there was
none in 2000 or 2001 (there was no concentrated calving at all
in 2001).
The conclusions reached by the biologists included this one:
"Calving areas in Canada and away from the Alaska coastal
plain were used only when the Arctic Refuge coastal plain,
including the 1002 Area, were unavailable due to late
snowmelt. Diet quality on the Canadian portions of the calving
ground was substantially lower than on the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain and 1002 portions of the calving ground. When
snow cover reduced access by females to the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain and 1002 Area for calving, calf survival during
June was 19% lower than when they could calve on the Arctic
Refuge coastal plain and 1002 Area."
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm
Elsewhere they document that as little as a 5% reduction in
calf survival would sent the herd into permanent decline.
Here is a series of significant quotes that put this into perspective:
"Since 1972, there have been only 2 years (2000, 2001) when
all calving occurred in Canada and 1 additional year (1982)
when all concentrated calving occurred in Canada."
"The general location of calving in the years 1983-2001 was
related to the winter Arctic Oscillation (January, February,
March) during previous calendar year, approximately 15 months
before calving. In years when the Arctic Oscillation was
positive, more than half of the concentrated calving area was
likely to be located on the Alaska portion of the coastal
plain (83.3% of the years, Fisher?s Exact Test, P =
0.045). Similarly, there was a tendency (66.7% of years,
Fisher?s Exact Test, P = 0.057) for more than half the females
to calve in the 1002 Area when the Arctic Oscillation in the
previous calendar winter was positive."
"During post-calving (>3 weeks after calf birth), Porcupine
herd caribou (regardless of calving location) tended to move
westward (Fig. 3.11). Even in exceptional years when calving
occurred far to the east in Canada (e.g., 2000, 2001)
(Fig. 3.13) caribou reached the Arctic Refuge coastal plain
and portions of the 1002 Area by late-June or July
(S. A. Arthur, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal
communication). As a result of these westward movements,
essentially the entire 1002 Area was eventually used by late
June or early July. Most of the use of the western most portion
of the 1002 Area by satellite-collared females of the
Porcupine caribou herd occurred during 24 June-14 August
(Fig. 3.11)."
"Individual radio-collared caribou showed at least partial
fidelity (i.e., caribou repeatedly returned to specific areas)
to either the coastal plain, foothills, or mountain zones
during the insect harassment season in different years (Walsh
et al. 1992)."
Your claim that they wander randomly, is false. It is quite
clear that their movements are very specifically related to
known factors, with specific effects having documented
priorities. (I won't go into detail on that, but anyone who
wants to know should read the cited URL, which is very
detailed.)
>Another fact.....more humans in the United States give birth in Hospitals
>than at the turn of the 20th century. However, the population has increased!
>How would you like to spin that fact Floyd...?
Look up the numbers for infant mortality. You'll find the
*same* relationship between humans getting better care and
caribou getting better care.
>Barrow has a fish and game office.....go look at the counts for yourself.
I've been posting ADF&G data for years Jim, when are *you* going
to actually look at the reports and stop quoting propaganda you
read in Frank Murkowski's campaign press releases from years
ago. He was lying then just as much now (just that everyone
*knows* he is lying now).
Oh, I forgot... you did once actually read one of Ray Cameron's
reports! You quoted it here too. The "summary" of reasons
given to do the research is what you claimed were the
conclusions. It never occurred to you that I'd have a copy of
that paper in hand, and point out your error.
>Stop the lies....there are more caribou in that herd now than just before
>the pipeline started being built. Fact Floyd......just the facts!
But those caribou have moved *away* from the oil development.
You are trying to draw a false relationship between a herd that
has increased in size 50 miles from oil development; and
ignoring the *documented* fact that in the areas of oil
infrastructure caribou numbers *declined*.
Here's are real killer statement for you Booth:
The apparent divergence in the relative sizes of the Central
Arctic herd and adjacent Teshekpuk Lake herd after 1987
(Fig. 3.9) suggests that the growth rate of the Central
Arctic herd may have slowed after roads and pipelines
expanded in the developed zone and the concentrated calving
area in the developed zone shifted south-southwest. The
relative trajectories of the 2 herds' growth curves were
parallel through the mid- to late-1980s when both herds were
slightly less than 4 times as large as when first
censused. Thereafter, their trajectories diverged
slightly. By the late 1990s the Teshekpuk Lake herd was about
7 times larger than when first censused while the Central
Arctic herd was only about 5.4 times as large as when first
observed. Cronin et al. (1998) noted that exponential growth
rate of the Teshekpuk Lake herd was approximately twice as
great as the exponential growth rate estimated for the
Central Arctic herd (0.152 vs. 0.077, respectively) from the
mid-1970s through the mid-1990s.
The available evidence suggests that oil infrastructure has indeed
slowed growth of the Central Arctic herd.
>JIM (tires of Floyds myth that there are less caribou in the herd now !)
Nobody has said there are fewer caribou in the herd. Why is it
you have to be dishonest at *every* *step* *of* *the* *way*?
Jim Booth
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> And not *one* survey says there are "there are *more* caribou
> >> around Prudhoe Bay than before oil production started!", which
> >> is what you claimed. There *are* more caribou *south* of
> >> Prudhoe Bay. And there are more caribou *east* of Prudhoe Bay.
> >> And there are more caribou *west* of Prudhoe bay. Unless of course
> >> by "around Prudhoe" you mean everywhere except Prudhoe itself!
> >
> >I guess that since you just can't comprehend the fact....yes Floyd it is
a
> >fact....that the caribou herd had *MORE* caribou in the herd than just
> >before the pipeline being built makes it impossible to inform you.
> >Floyd.....EVERY SINGLE CARIBOU SURVEY clearly states the estimated number
> >each year it counts the heard. Check it out.
>
> Check it out Jim, there are more caribou south of Prudhoe, more
> east, and more west. The reports *clearly* state:
Ahhhh, I see....*NOW* you are *not* claiming there are less caribou in the
herd....now you have flipped the conversation over to less caribou *of* that
herd using the develped area of Prudhoe Bay! Dummy, sure there are *less*
caribou that try to feed on the gravel roads then when there were no roads.
Gee Floyd, how you try to twist things around. However, *YOU* did admit, in
your own around the topic way, of saying there were *MORE* caribou total in
the herd than before the oil development. That I will take as finally
agreeing with me on the subject and it can be dropped. Yes Floyd....there
*are* more caribou in that herd....glad you can admit it.
>
>
> Over the years from 1983 to 2001 an average of 43% of
> all calves were born in the 1002 Area of ANWR.
Well, you went back 18 years and *I* went back a decade.....same general
results.....caribou haven't used that area 1002 for calving 60% of the
time.......another agreement with me.
Well Floyd....guess you are seeing the light after all.
Thanks for the proof.
JIM (whew.....Floyd can't dispute the facts!)
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87y7twl...@apaflo.com...
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes it is Eugene.....the locals use that herd for subsistence. It is
very
> >> >important to them.
> >>
> >> Pretty funny Jim. Tell us who are these "locals" that use the
> >> Central Arctic caribou herd for subsistence?
> >>
> >> Most of the animals harvested in that herd are taken along the
> >> Dalton highway, by *sport* hunters from Fairbanks.
> >>
> >> Local subsistence harvest probably doesn't amount to more than
> >> 100-200 animals on a good year. The total harvest is only 200-900
> >> per year.
> >>
> >> Compare that, for example, to the 2000-3000 animals harvested
> >> for subsistence from the Teshekpuk Lake herd in an average year,
> >> almost totally by subsistence hunters from Anuktuvuk Pass, Barrow,
> >> Atqasuk and Wainwright.
Why not campare where 100% of the Nelchina Herd is subsistence.........
Your examples are smoke and mirrors Floyd....I guess you don't know about
subsistence....ease of gathering...distance from herd.....animals that can
be reached by sporthunters....
When you study and figure out the above *then* come back and give jumbled up
numbers.
JIM (shaking his head again over Floyd's ignorance)
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87wt9fn...@apaflo.com...
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And not *one* survey says there are "there are *more* caribou
>> >> around Prudhoe Bay than before oil production started!", which
>> >> is what you claimed. There *are* more caribou *south* of
>> >> Prudhoe Bay. And there are more caribou *east* of Prudhoe Bay.
>> >> And there are more caribou *west* of Prudhoe bay. Unless of course
>> >> by "around Prudhoe" you mean everywhere except Prudhoe itself!
>> >
>> >I guess that since you just can't comprehend the fact....yes Floyd it is
>a
>> >fact....that the caribou herd had *MORE* caribou in the herd than just
>> >before the pipeline being built makes it impossible to inform you.
>> >Floyd.....EVERY SINGLE CARIBOU SURVEY clearly states the estimated number
>> >each year it counts the heard. Check it out.
>>
>> Check it out Jim, there are more caribou south of Prudhoe, more
>> east, and more west. The reports *clearly* state:
>
>Ahhhh, I see....*NOW* you are *not* claiming there are less caribou in the
>herd....now you have flipped the conversation over to less caribou *of* that
>herd using the develped area of Prudhoe Bay! Dummy,
Dummy you are indeed. That is *exactly* what I said to start with.
Your claim that there are more caribou at Prudhoe Bay is dead wrong.
Your claim that there is significance to there being more caribou 50
miles from Prudhoe Bay is rediculous.
>sure there are *less*
>caribou that try to feed on the gravel roads then when there were no roads.
>Gee Floyd, how you try to twist things around. However, *YOU* did admit, in
>your own around the topic way, of saying there were *MORE* caribou total in
>the herd than before the oil development.
Are you now admitting that oil devepment at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk have
been *detrimental* to the Central Arctic Caribou herd? In, of course,
your own round about way...
>That I will take as finally
>agreeing with me on the subject and it can be dropped. Yes Floyd....there
>*are* more caribou in that herd....glad you can admit it.
You finally woke up and realized what you were arguing is a non sequitor.
>> Over the years from 1983 to 2001 an average of 43% of
>> all calves were born in the 1002 Area of ANWR.
>
>Well, you went back 18 years and *I* went back a decade.....same general
>results.....caribou haven't used that area 1002 for calving 60% of the
>time.......another agreement with me.
That is dead wrong. They nurture virtually 100% of their calves in
that area *every* year. That is part of "calving".
>Well Floyd....guess you are seeing the light after all.
>
>Thanks for the proof.
>
>JIM (whew.....Floyd can't dispute the facts!)
I do not dispute the fact that you are so easily confused by
everything there is to say about caribou.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> >> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Yes it is Eugene.....the locals use that herd for subsistence. It is very
>> >> >important to them.
>> >>
>> >> Pretty funny Jim. Tell us who are these "locals" that use the
>> >> Central Arctic caribou herd for subsistence?
>> >>
>> >> Most of the animals harvested in that herd are taken along the
>> >> Dalton highway, by *sport* hunters from Fairbanks.
>> >>
>> >> Local subsistence harvest probably doesn't amount to more than
>> >> 100-200 animals on a good year. The total harvest is only 200-900
>> >> per year.
>> >>
>> >> Compare that, for example, to the 2000-3000 animals harvested
>> >> for subsistence from the Teshekpuk Lake herd in an average year,
>> >> almost totally by subsistence hunters from Anuktuvuk Pass, Barrow,
>> >> Atqasuk and Wainwright.
>
>Why not campare where 100% of the Nelchina Herd is subsistence.........
Because is not logically connected to the discussion. Logic is
something you have a serious problem with.
Logically your statement that the CAH is "very important" to
locals for subsistence is simply wrong. It is true that
*caribou* are very important, but they harvest more than 90% of
their needs from other herds, not from the Central Arctic herd.
You might as well say the Nelchina Herd is "very important" to
residents of the North Slope. Your logic is *faulty*.
I notice you often use this particular logical fallacy to try
pushing some really stupid ideas. You state two "facts". One
is true, one is false. When the false one is demonstrated
false, you defend the true one as if that makes the other one
true. It doesn't.
The Central Arctic herd is "very important to them", because
"the locals use that herd for subsistence."
The locals do use caribou for subsistence, and even use a few
from the CAH. The numbers however clearly show that they don't
use very many, and the CAH is not hardly a "very important"
herd.
>Your examples are smoke and mirrors Floyd....I guess you don't know about
>subsistence....ease of gathering...distance from herd.....animals that can
>be reached by sporthunters....
Why is it, do you think, they take 10 times as many caribou from
other herds? Sport hunters are fools who will spend thousands
of dollars, travel many miles, and use up a great deal of time
to get a Boone & Crocket head.
The CAH is not important for North Slope subsistence hunters
(i.e., "locals") *mostly* because there are vastly more caribou
available for greatly less effort from other herds.
>When you study and figure out the above *then* come back and give jumbled up
>numbers.
>
>JIM (shaking his head again over Floyd's ignorance)
Again, your logic is comedy... but what else is new. We've seen
this time and again from you Jim. It is amusing, and fun to
play with your head though. At least you don't get psychotic
the way Sylvia Sullivan and Tim Smith do.
Eugene Miya
Tim Smith <admini...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>*more* caribou
>>>>>>Ahhh, another one of those "more" is "better" thinkers.
>>>>>>Cancer as growth logic.
>>>>>More-is-better is a pretty widely accepted model
>>>>>for caribou management.
>>>>Who management?
>>
>>In article <vh0nd2t7eemjl3v96...@4ax.com>,
>>Tim Smith <admini...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>No, that would be for owls.
>>OK, which agencys?
>
So you don't really know which agencies.
>>>>You mean economists?
>>>I mean wildlife managers.
>>Post a name.
>
>a name
So you don't really know nothing about wildlife management.
>>OK, well I was with Boyd, the BLM guy about a month an a half a go.
>>And I never heard any of this more-is-better from him.
>
>BLM manages land.
So you don't really know nothing about land management.
>>Oh political and economic,
>
>All of the above.
So you sum to zero so far.
>>You don't know what a Lotka-Volterra model is do you?
>
>Is this a quiz?
You don't know what a Lotka-Volterra model is do you?
I started off fairly neutral about your posted opinions.
And I am finding in the balance that you really know nothing
except the selfish goals you have for yourself.
>>>>>Is there some reason to think that a smaller
>>>>>Central Arctic caribou herd would be better?
>>>>So who said smaller?
>>>
>>>I thought you did, "Ahhh, another one of those
>>>"more" is "better" thinkers. Cancer as growth
>>>logic."
>>
>>That's close enough and you should be able to see that I didn't use smaller.
>>You did.
>
>OK, then I'll answer my own question. There is no
>reason the CACH should be smaller.
You are like those mentally ill people who talk to themselves?
>>>>Do you have some sort of forgone conclusion in your thinking?
>>>Yes, I think it is a forgone conclusion that the
>>>state is required to manage caribou according to
>>>the constitutional mandate for sustained yield. In
>> which article, sect. etc.?
>>>general, more-is-better if you are trying to
>>>maximize human harvest.
>>Human harvest is in the AK state Constitution?
>
>Yes
Where?
>> which article, sect. etc.?
>>>The state managers who manage Central Arctic herd
>> Like whom?
>
>State of Alaska. It is no individual's private
>domain if that is what you are implying.
No, I am not implying that. You seem to carry a lot of mental baggage
that you lay on others. So no individual: you can't name a non-existant
person, a non existant state manager because there is no state manager.
And the other guys here think Sylvia is bad.
>>It's not my model. That's the biological community's model to
>>understand population.
>
>The "biological community" is large and diverse it
>has more than one model. State agencies are bound
>by the constitution's sustained yield clause.
Yes, but you have shown that you can name no models, and
I can't get a straight simple answer from you from fairly public
sources. And to you state agencies don't exist.
Which clause?
>>>There are few examples of arctic caribou herds
>>>remaining at constant numbers over long periods of
>>>time and the Central Arctic herd is no exception.
>>
>>I didn't say constant.
>>
>>>Whatever negative impacts Prudhoe Bay development
>>>might have had on the CAH, it didn't stop it from
>>>growing. This fact has lead to the floating of
>>>some very convoluted arguments by those wanting to
>>>conclude that arctic oil development is
>>>universally bad for caribou, as we see in this
>>>thread.
>>
>>I'm not getting any details from you except vague policy.
>
>The Alaska constitutional is not vague.
All human language endeavours are vague. That's why the legal system
appointed judges, and that's why the US and all its states separated
powers. And you are using terms I don't hear from biologists.
The only person with convoluted arguments that I can see is you.
>>I have now spent 6 summer field seasons helping friends
>>who do professional ecology for the UAF next to the TAPS.
>>Now I will say that I can't agree with everything my friends do
>>in their experimental paradigms (their peer review process is
>>a bit different from CS's).
>
>Well that certainly establishes your credentials
>in the area. Is this an argument by authority?
No, this is more information finding on my part.
I would go ask authority.
>>But I am on the periphery of these areas and people.
>>And I know some of the BP, Alyeska guys, and Veco guys.
>>You aren't helping them.
>
>I wasn't trying to, what is your point?
It appears that you help no one but yourself.
>> If you would like to straighten out
>>some of the convoluted signal that you are sending me:
>>1) answer a few of my very basic questions
>
>Check. Answered above. Gee, I hope I get a good
>grade.
0 of course.
>>2) don't use words which I didn't use. Look back up there where you used "owls"
>
>Please provide a list of acceptable words.
They are typified by the concept of an answer which for instance:
you know nothing about who controls Alaskan land,
nothing about the Alaskan constitution, and I could go on a bit
but why should I waste my time?
>>I'll leave it at 2 comments for now.
>
>Could you summarize the argument? It is far from
>clear at this point.
That you know nothing.
It's perfectly clear.
You and Floyd deserve each other. Floyd's not bad. I can verify things
he talks about. We have our disagreements, but he is capable of
answering the above very basic questions.
Have at him Floyd.
--
Floyd L. Davidson
>And the other guys here think Sylvia is bad.
Bingo. You are dead on target Eugene!
>That you know nothing.
>It's perfectly clear.
>
>You and Floyd deserve each other. Floyd's not bad. I can verify things
>he talks about. We have our disagreements, but he is capable of
>answering the above very basic questions.
>
>Have at him Floyd.
I don't mind diddling with fools or with logically impaired folks.
It can be very entertaining.
But I draw the line whenever someone displays overt psychosis.
Once it was apparent that Sylvia was sick (which took very
little time), I no longer had any interest in poking her with a
stick. The same is true of Tim Smith, though it took a couple
years of needling him before he went totally ballistic and made
it obvious to everyone who is at all perceptive.
We've had some others, but those two stick around. They also
make every attempt to act "normal", and a number of not so
perceptive people never realize they are both totally whacko.
Jim Booth
>
> Are you now admitting that oil devepment at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk have
> been *detrimental* to the Central Arctic Caribou herd? In, of course,
> your own round about way...
Noooooo, there are more caribou in the CAC herd than before development.
Come on Floyd.....you a slipping back into denile again. Just when you were
finally coming around to admitting the fact that the herd has grow in size
you take a step backward....shame on you Floyd!
>
> >> Over the years from 1983 to 2001 an average of 43% of
> >> all calves were born in the 1002 Area of ANWR.
> >
> >Well, you went back 18 years and *I* went back a decade.....same general
> >results.....caribou haven't used that area 1002 for calving 60% of the
> >time.......another agreement with me.
>
> That is dead wrong. They nurture virtually 100% of their calves in
> that area *every* year. That is part of "calving".
There you go again Floyd. First you claim that for 18 years, nearly 60% of
the time caribou calves are not born in area 1002...then you say what you
state is false!!! Golly Floyd....you make this soooooo difficult on
yourself. You are just too easy.
JIM (Floyd just can't make up his own mind!)
Jim Booth
>
> >Your examples are smoke and mirrors Floyd....I guess you don't know about
> >subsistence....ease of gathering...distance from herd.....animals that
can
> >be reached by sporthunters....
>
> (i.e., "locals") *mostly* because there are vastly more caribou
> available for greatly less effort from other herds.
>
> >When you study and figure out the above *then* come back and give jumbled
up
> >numbers.
of gathering.....distance from herd. You did it Floyd....be proud....we knew
if you look far and hard enough you could find it. Now then....you have said
*exactly* what I said. And yes Floyd.....those 200 animals that is taken
*is* important to those people that harvest them....or are they guilty of
wanton waste?
JIM (Floyd is slowly figuring it all out....there is hope yet!)
Dennis P. Harris
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> You can't tell the difference between more here and fewer there?
>
now, now, floyd, we all know that jim booth is a functional
illiterate who wouldn't know a conclusion if it bit him in the
ass.
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> Are you now admitting that oil devepment at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk have
>> been *detrimental* to the Central Arctic Caribou herd? In, of course,
>> your own round about way...
>
>Noooooo, there are more caribou in the CAC herd than before development.
>Come on Floyd.....you a slipping back into denile again. Just when you were
>finally coming around to admitting the fact that the herd has grow in size
>you take a step backward....shame on you Floyd!
Keep right on squirming Booth. You got caught *again*.
Floyd L. Davidson
You still can't support your claim that the Central Arctic caribou herd
is "very important" for local subsistence hunters, can you!
Once again, you got caught.
Floyd L. Davidson
Jim Booth does display many of the characteristics of people who
are illiterate. People who can't actually read make up for it
in a number of ways, and Booth exhibits just about every such
tendancy possible to display in this type of a forum. That of
course is absolutely astounding, given that this forum is in
fact written text! He obviously must be able to actually read
the words; but just as clearly he is almost incapable of
comprehension on a plane higher than perhaps phrases limited to
3 or 4 words.
The point above, about telling the difference between here and
there, pretty much sums up almost every exchange Booth and I
ever have. He makes a false statement, I point out that it is
false, and he defends some *other* statement. Sometimes he
defends a statement that simply uses the same words, some times
not even that.
He actually *doesn't* know what difference it makes whether it is
here or there!
Dennis P. Harris
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:
> If you would like to straighten out
> some of the convoluted signal that you are sending me:
> 1) answer a few of my very basic questions
> 2) don't use words which I didn't use. Look back up there where you used "owls"
> I'll leave it at 2 comments for now.
he twists everything, which is a good reason most of us have tim
smith killfiled.
Jim Booth
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you now admitting that oil devepment at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk
have
> >> been *detrimental* to the Central Arctic Caribou herd? In, of course,
> >> your own round about way...
> >
> >Noooooo, there are more caribou in the CAC herd than before development.
> >Come on Floyd.....you a slipping back into denile again. Just when you
were
> >finally coming around to admitting the fact that the herd has grow in
size
> >you take a step backward....shame on you Floyd!
>
> Keep right on squirming Booth. You got caught *again*.
>
your mind...larger in number or smaller in number. Now then, if you say
smaller....you go *against* every-single-survey ever made since oil
development. If you say larger in number.....well, not only do you speak the
truth but you admit, again, you are wrong.
JIM (loving this.....how stupid Floyd can be!)
Jim Booth
"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:kgeqd2hub5aggmpfe...@4ax.com...
Dennis....still see your trolls once in awhile on rec.travel.cruises. Golly,
those people dislike you even more than those on ACA!
Got a charge out of your comments about conclusions.....guess you think the
herd hasn't grown either....now you are the *only* two people that disagree
with the statement. I'm sure that doesn't surprise any regular reader
here....neither one of you two accepts facts.
See you still support Prop 2. Why? Looks like every notable Alaskan and most
organizations have come out against it. Hummmmm.......guess that says
something about you Denny.
JIM
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87u04iv...@apaflo.com...
animals taken for subsistence, in your eyes, meaningless to the people that
depend on them for survival? Now you are bordering on racism Floyd....don't
go there....leave it alone and stop while you can still save a little face.
JIM (shocked at Floyds comments!)
Dennis P. Harris
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> You have to pay attention to *detail*. It *is* important.
expecting booth to pay attention to anything other than racist
rightwingnut propoganda is completely unrealistic. you are
wasting your time and bandwidth, floyd.
Dennis P. Harris
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> He obviously must be able to actually read
> the words; but just as clearly he is almost incapable of
> comprehension on a plane higher than perhaps phrases limited to
> 3 or 4 words.
must be early onset dementia...
Floyd L. Davidson
Keep squirming Jim, nobody except you seems to have missed the point.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I just did Floyd....you are just to simple to understand......or is 200
>animals taken for subsistence, in your eyes, meaningless to the people that
>depend on them for survival? Now you are bordering on racism Floyd....don't
>go there....leave it alone and stop while you can still save a little face.
>
>JIM (shocked at Floyds comments!)
Why do you have to manufacture statements for others? Why not
respond to what I did say, rather than claiming all of this
fantasy about what you wish I'd said.
*You* did say that the Central Arctic caribou herd was "very
important" for subsistence to the "locals". That isn't true.
Nobody says subsistence isn't important Jim. Nobody says
caribou are not important Jim. Nobody except you claims that
200 animals maximum on a good year from the Central Arctic herd
is anything other than barely significant, compared to 3000
animals harvested from other herds.
And what a hoot, *you* suggesting anyone else is "bordering on
racism", given your history of abject ignorance as displayed
specifically in this particular thread by your claim a caribou
herd that is barely used for subsistence, but with several times
as many animals harvested by sport hunters, is "very important"
to people who wouldn't notice if it didn't exist!
I don't mind if you speak for the right wingnut/yahoos down
there in the MatSu Valley area, but stop claiming you know
anything about decent Alaskans who live anywhere else, much less
here on the North Slope.
Jim Booth
making reference to you when he said "pay attention to *detail*. It *is*
important.
Got a good laugh out of it. Keep trying troll.......your are as easy as
Floyd....stupid Denny.
JIM (Denny can not even tell who is writing!)
Jim Booth
the herd small in number than at the start of oil development in that
area......larger in number than at the start of oil development in that
area....or the same in number.
Me bets you don't have the guts to do it.......then you would have to face
the fact that....as usual....I was right in the factual statement that the
caribou herd has more animals (larger) now than when oil development started
in Prudhoe.
Come on now Floyd.....none of your twists....just answer the
challenge....you won't do it will you.
JIM (Floyd just won't face facts.)
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> He actually *doesn't* know what difference it makes whether it is
>> here or there!
>>
>Make it simple Floyd....publish the survey numbers of the caribou herd....is
>the herd small in number than at the start of oil development in that
>area......larger in number than at the start of oil development in that
>area....or the same in number.
Are you totally daft? How many times do you want to see what the
biologists said:
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>Me bets you don't have the guts to do it.......then you would have to face
What guts does it take to post it how many times now 4, 5, 6??
I haven't kept count.
>the fact that....as usual....I was right in the factual statement that the
>caribou herd has more animals (larger) now than when oil development started
>in Prudhoe.
But those animals are *not* at Prudhoe Bay. The same is true of
the Western Arctic herd, that has also been increasing, and the
Teshekpuk Lake herd which as also been increasing. The increase
for *none* of them is significant, because *none* of them are
increasing their use of the Prudhoe Bay area where the oil
development is taking place.
In fact caribou, from the now larger Central Arctic herd are
using the Prudhoe Bay area "conservatively" 78% less.
The obvious conclusion is of course that oil development has
in fact had a *negative* effect on the Central Arctic herd.
>Come on now Floyd.....none of your twists....just answer the
>challenge....you won't do it will you.
>
>JIM (Floyd just won't face facts.)
You have yet to post a single fact.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net> wrote in message
>news:o8pqd2psf3skc1afd...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:10:36 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska,
>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>> > You have to pay attention to *detail*. It *is* important.
>>
>> expecting booth to pay attention to anything other than racist
>> rightwingnut propoganda is completely unrealistic. you are
>> wasting your time and bandwidth, floyd.
>>
>Denny.....Floyd was answering *jbohren* not Booth......just maybe Floyd was
>making reference to you when he said "pay attention to *detail*. It *is*
>important.
As usual, you miss the point. Mr. Bohren is a pretty sharp
feller. He may not be that much into recent caribou research,
and therefore might miss a detail here or there and need a
pointer about what it means. But he *does* know how to pay
attention to detail, and he *will* learn from anyone who does
post facts and logical explainations.
Which of course means he is totally different than Jim Booth.
>Got a good laugh out of it. Keep trying troll.......your are as easy as
>Floyd....stupid Denny.
>
>JIM (Denny can not even tell who is writing!)
Poor Jim Booth, who can't figure out that "who is writing" is
like just like we tried to explain about more here and less
there being totally different. What counts is not who the reply
was to, but _who_ _Dennis_ _is_ _talking_ _about_. He mentioned you
by name Booth, so it's hard to see how anyone would miss who he
meant.
Jim Booth
> Please cite a source for this claim. ADFG does not
> collect data relevant to whether a CAH caribou was
> taken by sport or subsistence resident hunters.
> The only known sport hunter harvest data is the
> relatively small number taken by non-resident
> hunters who are by definition sport hunters.
> --
> Tim Smith
Don't make it too difficult for Floyd Tim.....he has dug his hole deep
enough as it is. Floyd doesn't have a clue.
Can he be sooo dense as to not know? Whew....he should crawl under the
woodwork as he usually does when people prove him totally wrong....just a
matter of time before he runs.
JIM (Can't believe Floyd keeps doing this to himself!)
Jim Booth
"Tim Smith" <admini...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:eu4sd2l4a59qh4ln4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:07:22 -0800, "Jim Booth"
> <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> >news:87psf6v...@apaflo.com...
> >> NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:26:50 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska,
> >> >fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You can't tell the difference between more here and fewer there?
> >>
herd....is
> >the herd small in number than at the start of oil development in that
> >area......larger in number than at the start of oil development in that
> >area....or the same in number.
> >
> >Me bets you don't have the guts to do it.......then you would have to
face
> >the fact that....as usual....I was right in the factual statement that
the
> >caribou herd has more animals (larger) now than when oil development
started
> >in Prudhoe.
> >
> >Come on now Floyd.....none of your twists....just answer the
> >challenge....you won't do it will you.
> >
> >JIM (Floyd just won't face facts.)
>
>
> http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/ca05_int_nth.pdf
> --
> Tim Smith
Floyd *never* does.....about time you his "ya buts" posts! Can't believe he
is carrying this on when he *must* know the facts and numbers...then
again......
JIM
Floyd L. Davidson
>Don't make it too difficult for Floyd Tim.....he has dug his hole deep
>enough as it is. Floyd doesn't have a clue.
Oh, sure... who is going to believe you that nobody has done
subsistence use studies in places like ANWR, Prudhoe Bay, and
Teshekpuk Lake. After all why would an environmental impact
statement (how many of those have been filed?) need to have that
kind of data? And of course neither the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game nor the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife
Management would need that kind of information, now would they?
Dumb doesn't quite express what your comment indicates...
I'm not going to list everything that exists (that's a *big*
honking list!), but just to give you an idea what to look for...
Nuiqsut's subsistence patterns were extensively studied in the
following years:
1985 Pedersen, 1995
1992 Fuller and George, 1997
1993 Pedersen, 2001
1994-1995 Brower and Opie, 1997
1999-2000 Pedersen, 2001
Typically the above reports are cited in this manner,
Brower, H., Jr., and R.T. Opie. 1997. North Slope
Borough subsistence harvest documentation project:
data for Nuiqsut, Alaska, for the period July 1,
1994, to June 30, 1995. Report by the Department
of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough,
Barrow, AK
You can find various reports for various villages at
various intervals.
BLM, oil companies, and even ADF&G reports use that information,
and are typically cited in this manner,
Coffing, M. and S. Pederson. 1985. Caribou hunting:
Land use dimensions, harvest level, and selected
aspects of the hunt during regulatory year 1983-84
in Kaktovik, Alaska. Report by the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks.
Technical Paper No. 120. 38 p.
What do all those reports say? Typically they report 200-250
animals at most are harvested by subsistence hunters per year.
Sometimes as few as 50. ("Caribou Management Report of
survey-inventory activities 1 July 1998 - 30 June 2000",
December 2001, ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Carole
Healy Editor.)
Here's the significance:
The subsistence harvest rate (6%; Carroll 2003) for the TLH is
considerably higher than the subsistence harvest rate for the
CAH (2%).
http://mercury.bio.uaf.edu/ak-tws/NPR-A%20TWS%20comment.htm
TLH is the Teshekpuk Lake Herd and CAH is the Central Arctic
Herd, which is utilized at about 1/3rd the level of the other.
Are those enough clues to get you going?
>Can he be sooo dense as to not know? Whew....he should crawl under the
>woodwork as he usually does when people prove him totally wrong....just a
>matter of time before he runs.
>
>JIM (Can't believe Floyd keeps doing this to himself!)
Oh, Jim... when are *you* going to post even one single *fact*
to this thread? Everything you've said so far turns out to be
wrong according to every reliable source. No wonder you can't
cite *anyone* who supports your ideas, other than Sullivan and
Smith.
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/ca05_int_nth.pdf
>> --
>
>Floyd *never* does.....about time you his "ya buts" posts! Can't believe he
>is carrying this on when he *must* know the facts and numbers...then
>again......
>
>JIM
Guess you boys should have gotten someone who reads English to
tell you what the cited reference says. It says *exactly* what
I've been saying! The subsistence harvest for the CAH is
200-250 animals (and that is in good years). Those are the
numbers you claim the ADF&G doesn't have.
But it gets better too. While they don't go into much detail
about how little impact the CAH has for local subsistence, they
*do* talk about everything that is important: "The TCH is a very
important subsistence resource..." Not the CAH, the Teshekpuk
Lake Herd.
Duh, when are *you* going to post a valid *fact* Jim? So far
not one...
Floyd L. Davidson
Do *not* send me private email. Post it so that *everyone* can
see what a fucking idiot you are.
Jim Booth or Margaret Booth <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
[abject stupidity snipped]
Jim Booth
>
> Do *not* send me private email. Post it so that *everyone* can
> see what a fucking idiot you are.
>
> Jim Booth or Margaret Booth <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>
> [abject stupidity snipped]
>
>
> --
I didn't want you to keep making such a fool of yourself, gave you the cites
and links to them, and tried to get you focused. That, apparently, was
rejected and you have asked me to post it publicly. Well......
Let's take a look at the first post I made under the heading, "Prudhoe Oil
to be shut down for months". Notice the title...."Prudhoe Oil"
Then my first post.....
"Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
before oil production started!"
To this you must have disagreed and began to quote all kinds of things that
caused other writers to disagree with you....for example jbohren that
explained to you, from first hand experience, that cow caribou and calves
observed where you claimed none existed.
Tim also made some constructive comments.
To this you have grown more and more aggressive and now have lowered
yourself to name calling and swearing. Rather a childish move.
You also claimed I had not produced *any* cites to prove that there are more
caribou in the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (that is the herd that is in and
around Prudhoe Bay....easy for you to check that out....if you will). I then
e-mailed you the cites....the population numbers....and kept it private to
save you embarrassment. Anyway, you in turn called my a, ahhhhh....*fucking
idiot* and said I should show it publicly. Sooooo, here goes.
In 1974, the survey of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd was 6,000 animals.
That can be found at:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/caribou/CAHerdStudy.html
Then, in most recent population figures that are given by survey is from
July 2002, and the count was up to 31,857. This can be verified by going to
the following:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.fa_si_rpts
Now then.....remember the topic you disagree with.....I will repost it here:
"Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
before oil production started!"
Sorry Floyd.....numbers don't lie....especially when it is over 5 times
growth rate of that herd.
JIM (hope Floyd see the light....this time)
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87irkxrn...@apaflo.com...
>>
>> Do *not* send me private email. Post it so that *everyone* can
>> see what a fucking idiot you are.
>>
>> Jim Booth or Margaret Booth <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>
>> [abject stupidity snipped]
And I *do* appreciate that you have done exactly that! This attempt
at covering your tracks is one of the most hilarious articles you've
yet posted. Prior to this you have not provided a single cite or
reference to support *anything* you've said. Now you do! Two of
them.
Of course they don't support anything you have said. One of them
says *nothing* about any of it (it does provide statement of assurance
that studies were completed, and tells how much the cost though!) The
other one sounds much like something I wrote (with the exception of
making one gross error two times, before correcting it in the same
article).
>> --
>Well Floyd....I sincerely tried to have you step back and take another look.
>I didn't want you to keep making such a fool of yourself, gave you the cites
>and links to them, and tried to get you focused. That, apparently, was
>rejected and you have asked me to post it publicly. Well......
You often cease posting publicly when you know you've been
exposed again as a total fool, and start sending me these
idiotic rants in email. *DON'T DO IT.*
>Let's take a look at the first post I made under the heading, "Prudhoe Oil
>to be shut down for months". Notice the title...."Prudhoe Oil"
>
>Then my first post.....
>
>"Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>before oil production started!"
A false statement. Surveys show a 78% *decrease* in the use of
the Prudhoe Bay oil field area by caribou from the Central
Arctic caribou Herd. That has been documented in several
reports by the ADF&G, and I've posted quotes for you to verify
it. Yet you continue to claim your false statement is true.
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith,
Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
You can't seem to understand that just because the size of the
CAH has increased does *not* mean there are more caribou at
Prudhoe Bay, simply because Prudhoe Bay is not the only place
that caribou from the CAH are found.
It is absurdly illogical to claim that caribou 50 or 100 miles from
Prudhoe Bay indicate there are more caribou "around Prudhoe Bay than
before oil production started".
>To this you must have disagreed and began to quote all kinds of things that
>caused other writers to disagree with you....for example jbohren that
>explained to you, from first hand experience, that cow caribou and calves
>observed where you claimed none existed.
He did no such thing. He recounted such things as a bull
caribou using the road a Cape Lisburne. Jim Bohren is a pretty
sharp fellow, and should not be confused with your idiotic
rants. Please notice that when I pointed out to him the context
of what he was observing, and how it fits precisely within the
described characteristics of caribou, he did *not* argue that
his observations were counter to what the various studies have
indicated.
You *are* that foolish.
>Tim also made some constructive comments.
All of them wrong. He's the jerk that gave you a reference, which
*totally* supports, right down to the specific numbers, *everything*
I've said. Yet he claimed the numbers weren't in the report!
Here's the URL. You might note that I had previously provided
a URL for another of those same reports, as an example of where
you should be researching this information. Of course, if you
can't read it, I guess it doesn't help much to know where the
data is...
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/ca05_int_nth.pdf
Please look at page 279, starting at paragraph 4. In the last
paragraph on that page (paragraph 6), are the figures for
subsistence harvest by local residents of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik,
estimated at 200-250 annually. Make sure you do read the
continuation of that discussion (about how the estimate is made)
on page 279. There have been several years when specific
studies of subsistence harvests have been made. I previously
provided an example of how that data is cited, so that you could
locate those specific reports too.
Claims that numbers for the subsistence harvest are unknown are
false.
Claims that the CAH is "very important" for local subsistence
are equally false, as demonstrated by the numbers. In fact not
only does the ADF&G *never* describe the CAH in those terms, it
*does* describe the Teshekpuk Lake Herd in exactly those terms
in that particular report. See page 256, paragraph 4.
Of course, earlier when I showed you what makes a "very
important" subsistence resource, you ranted and raved that you
don't understand what that data is supposed to mean. I guess
that subject is just a little too complex for you, given that it
involves people and places you are totally ignorant of.
>To this you have grown more and more aggressive and now have lowered
>yourself to name calling and swearing. Rather a childish move.
Your posts are *all* childish. Sending me disgusting email is
absolutely unacceptable.
>You also claimed I had not produced *any* cites to prove that there are more
Not a one.
>caribou in the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (that is the herd that is in and
>around Prudhoe Bay....easy for you to check that out....if you will). I then
Looks as if *you* need to check where it is. It is also all the
way over to Kaktovik, equally well all the way over to Nuiqsut,
as well as ranging south of the Brooks range.
Hey Jim, just because Seattle has millions of people, some of
whom work in Alaska, doesn't mean the population of Alaska is
now in the multi-millions!
>e-mailed you the cites....the population numbers....and kept it private to
>save you embarrassment. Anyway, you in turn called my a, ahhhhh....*fucking
>idiot* and said I should show it publicly. Sooooo, here goes.
It does seem to adequately describe you, eh? You can't post
cites or references, and you send me disgusting email that is
both inappropriate and grossly errored.
You're just lucky nobody in this group (except maybe Jan, who if
I remember right has come close a couple times) ever tells you
what they *really* think of you.
>In 1974, the survey of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd was 6,000 animals.
>That can be found at:
>
>http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/caribou/CAHerdStudy.html
That is a particularly interesting cite. It does *not* support
what you have been saying, of course.
It makes reference to a "ADFG Caribou Map" that does not produce
a map at all. I suspect is simply hasn't been updated since it
was written in 2002. (If you want, I can provide a URL to a
current map.)
It does begin with one grossly false statement made twice,
though it is corrected in the context of later discussion. It
states that "although the calving grounds of the CAH lies within
the area of oil development, their population has increased
significantly since the 1970s when development first began.",
which is *false* in relation to where the calving grounds have
been during the period of population growth.
The calving grounds were within the Prudhoe Bay oil development
area *until* the development began, and since then the caribou
have *not* used that area for concentrated calving. The false
statement is corrected by the later discussion which does
mention that studies have shown how the use pattern changed. It
mentions that research was underway to determine more about why
the herd moved, and what the effects on productivity were. That
research is of course mostly finished now, and the results are
detailed in the articles by caribou biologists that I have
previously cited and quoted from.
So, the question is why do you cite something that verifies what
I say, and yet still claim I'm wrong?
"There are now indications that the caribou which spend
more time on or near oilfields are not faring as well as
other members of the CAH that seldom encounter
development."
"Avoidance of roads and pipelines during calving may be
causing caribou to abandon preferred habitats and
possibly to overuse some undisturbed habitats."
"There is very strong evidence that, since the Kuparuk
Field was developed, the main concentration of calving
caribou has shifted to the south of the field, and that
this has brought the caribou into less-productive
habitat."
Here's another one that you repeatedly deny the significance of:
"Although calving has occurred historically over a fairly
large area of the North Slope in Alaska and the Yukon
Territory, most calves are usually born in a smaller
region that includes much of the area being considered
for oil development. During late June and early July,
essentially all cows and calves and many bulls of the
Porcupine Herd use the potential development area every
year."
The real kicker of course is that your cite has references...
each and every one of which is to a work by Ray Cameron, the
very biologist that I *repeatedly* cite and quote to you.
>Then, in most recent population figures that are given by survey is from
>July 2002, and the count was up to 31,857. This can be verified by going to
>the following:
>
>http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.fa_si_rpts
Is there some reason you cannot provide specific cites? That
page does not say *anything* about what we are discussing.
I looked at two of the caribou reports, neither gave *any*
numbers for caribou near Prudhoe Bay. For that matter, they
gave no numbers even for the entire CAH.
Why don't you *read* these things before you post them as
supporting evidence for what you say?
If you had actually read a few of the surveys and reports that
I've cited and quoted for you, you would have realized that it
is just amazing that a herd which grew from roughly 5000 animals
before oil development to more than 30,000 now has *reduced*
usage of the area of oil development by 78% in that same time.
Clearly people *can* see caribou around the oil development
area, but just as clearly the caribou have been negatively
affected by the oil development. (Another item that your
psychotic friend Tim Smith has commented incorrectly on. ADF&G
reports have *clearly* stated that there has been a negative
impact, and they go into pages of details on exactly what and
how it was detected, measured, and quantified. Those reports
have been cited, but neither of you are able to read or
understand them.)
>Now then.....remember the topic you disagree with.....I will repost it here:
>
>"Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
>before oil production started!"
>
>Sorry Floyd.....numbers don't lie....especially when it is over 5 times
>growth rate of that herd.
The numbers do not lie. The entire herd is 5 times larger, and
the use of that area has decrease 78%. That means there are
clearly *fewer* caribou around Prudhoe Bay oil field now than
were there prior to development.
>JIM (hope Floyd see the light....this time)
That light you see, Jim, at the end of the tunnel... is on a train.
jbohren
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net> wrote in message
>>news:o8pqd2psf3skc1afd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:10:36 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska,
>>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>> > You have to pay attention to *detail*. It *is* important.
>>>
>>> expecting booth to pay attention to anything other than racist
>>> rightwingnut propoganda is completely unrealistic. you are
>>> wasting your time and bandwidth, floyd.
>>>
>>Denny.....Floyd was answering *jbohren* not Booth......just maybe Floyd
>>was
>>making reference to you when he said "pay attention to *detail*. It *is*
>>important.
>
> As usual, you miss the point. Mr. Bohren is a pretty sharp
> feller. He may not be that much into recent caribou research,
> and therefore might miss a detail here or there and need a
> pointer about what it means. But he *does* know how to pay
> attention to detail, and he *will* learn from anyone who does
> post facts and logical explainations.
>
When I read Floyd's original post, I got the impression that he said that NO
calves were born in the oilfields. I didn't and still don't feel thats
true. I don't know when calves are dropped. But the calves I did see in the
Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay oilfields in June and July of this year were
obviously born this spring. Floyd doesn't know where the west gate is- its
just west of Deadhorse before the Alascom dish and PS1. I was there for 6
weeks straight and drove that miserable road at least twice a week.
BTW, it was a weird breakup- we didn't see a single white bear!!!
jbohren
> "jbohren" <nospamtoj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Whoa, you've missed the entire point. Let me back up and hit the
> highlights again.
>
> Caribou cows become increasingly skittish as they approach
> calving, and then gradually (as the calves are nurtured) return
> to "normal".
>
> On the opposite side of the coin, when caribou begin a migration
> the cows are *not* skittish, and will follow a leading bull
> anywhere. It happens that a few select old bulls lead the whole
> migration, and *they* are the skittish ones! (Granted, skittish
> in a different way.)
>
> Your statements below indicate that you are mixing observations
> under distinctly different circumstances as if they relate to
> each other and are the same. They are *not* equivalent.
>
>>The Kuparuk field is criss-crossed with roads- check out google maps. STP
>>and a several drill sites are within a mile of Oliktok. There is
>>absolutely
>>no way caribou can get there without crossing roads. I saw about 20 'bou
>>cross the spine road about 2 miles east of KOC and about 1/2 mile east of
>>a
>>drill site and intersection. There were cows and calves in that herd.
>
> An unqualified observation that does not give the detail
> required to make use of it in this discussion. Do you mean
> there were 3-4 week old calves, or 3 month old calves?
>
> The observations that caribou biologists have very carefully
> recorded suggest that cows just before calving and for perhaps a
> month after calving will *not* go there. Over the long run, the
> effect has been dramatic simply because caribou seem to have
> multi-year memory of geography.
>
> Here is an interesting graphic. Look at Figure 4.7 at this URL
>
> http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>
Nice Read!
The maps are little outdated, as there has been more roads built,
particularly south and west to Tarn and Meltwater. I kinda have a wait and
see attitude about ANWR. Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk are older generation
oilfields and if the smaller footprints at Alpine and the NPR work, then
build in ANWR. If they don't, then you haven't screwed up ANWR YET.
I also get real concerned when every stream crossing the spine road has a
boom stretched across it.
It also doesn't help that the state and feds aren't giving the oilfields
enough oversight. 14 years without running a pig? There's no way I'd give
BP any kind of tax break or write-off for this ****up. At least make any
fines equal or double to the tax writeoffs.
Jim Booth
>>
> That light you see, Jim, at the end of the tunnel... is on a train.
>
Oh my God! You *still* somehow claim that the CACH as grown over 5 times in
size since the start of Prudhoe Oil. Oh my....what else is there to
do....you can't even read the information provided....
*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken from the same
surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002.
I feel sorry for you Floyd....
JIM ( I can't spoon feed you Floyd....but trying to get you to read is
impossible!)
bookburn
"Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:44e0...@news.acsalaska.net...
The Prudhoe caribou mystery is probably similar to the unicorn
mystery. Once you believe in it, you find its signs everywhere.
bookburn
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>When I read Floyd's original post, I got the impression that he said that NO
>calves were born in the oilfields. I didn't and still don't feel thats
>true.
There are "virtually none", which is to say very few compared to
areas where concentrated calving takes place. There are
probably very close to absolutely none born within 2km of the
roads.
>I don't know when calves are dropped.
June. I can't remember the exact dates, but if my guess is
right it is early June for the CAH, and late June for the
Porcupine. I might have that backwards though.
>But the calves I did see in the
>Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay oilfields in June and July of this year were
>obviously born this spring.
The older they are, the more likely that will happen. At 4
weeks they are not nearly as skittish as at or just before
birth. By the end of July they should be going just about
anywhere, though measureably in lower numbers closer to oil
infrastructure.
>Floyd doesn't know where the west gate is- its
>just west of Deadhorse before the Alascom dish and PS1. I was there for 6
>weeks straight and drove that miserable road at least twice a week.
I've been there, but it was 20 years ago and I don't have a
good feel for the geographic context.
>BTW, it was a weird breakup- we didn't see a single white bear!!!
Our ice just moved away from the shore here a few days ago. It
has been a lot of years since it has been this late. Oddly
enough, a week later and there is, from what I hear, no ice for
*miles*.
Floyd L. Davidson
>> Here is an interesting graphic. Look at Figure 4.7 at this URL
>>
>> http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>>
>Nice Read!
True! I just love that one.
>The maps are little outdated, as there has been more roads built,
>particularly south and west to Tarn and Meltwater. I kinda have a wait and
>see attitude about ANWR. Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk are older generation
>oilfields and if the smaller footprints at Alpine and the NPR work, then
>build in ANWR. If they don't, then you haven't screwed up ANWR YET.
Boy, they are planning on a *real* test. The Teshekpuk Lake
Herd is an almost identical situation compared to the Porcupine
herd in many way. They essentially use a single concentrated
calving area for (with greater "fidelity" than even the
Porcupine herd), and regardless of where actual calving takes
place they nurture the calves there. Where the measured calf
survival for the PCH has gone from nearly 80% to nearly 40% when
they drop calves away from that single prime area, the measured
rates for the TLH are closer to 90% and 10%.
If they actually do install infrastructure, as is now allowed,
around the Lake, it could be a very quick and very obvious
disaster.
>I also get real concerned when every stream crossing the spine road has a
>boom stretched across it.
>
>It also doesn't help that the state and feds aren't giving the oilfields
>enough oversight. 14 years without running a pig? There's no way I'd give
>BP any kind of tax break or write-off for this ****up. At least make any
>fines equal or double to the tax writeoffs.
It was disgusting to have a few people claiming back in March
and April that the actual cause of the big spill was that
environmentalist had demanded "caribou crossing". The claim was
that the pipe covered with dirt was the cause of the spill. In
fact is was just a case of bad luck that the first hole happened
to pop loose under such a crossing.
Floyd L. Davidson
> >>
>> That light you see, Jim, at the end of the tunnel... is on a train.
>>
So you don't dare to even discuss 99.9% of the facts... are you
a coward?
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>Oh my God! You *still* somehow claim that the CACH as grown over 5 times in
>size since the start of Prudhoe Oil.
Sort of slow to catch on, aren't you!
>Oh my....what else is there to
>do....you can't even read the information provided....
We've seen exactly who isn't reading. You've posted cites that
support *my* statements, not yours! I assume the reason you
don't want to discuss those cites now, is that maybe you did
finally go read them now??? ;-)
Your claim was that there are *more* caribou around the Prudhoe
Bay oil field, and *that* *is* *not* *true*.
>*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken from the same
>surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002.
*No* survey has shown anything like 31,000 caribou anywhere
close to Prudhoe Bay in 2002.
Those are *not* figures for caribou around the Prudhoe Bay oil
field. (It's just as if you keep posting the census figures for
Seattle, and claiming that therefore Anchorage has millions of
people.)
>I feel sorry for you Floyd....
>
>JIM ( I can't spoon feed you Floyd....but trying to get you to read is
>impossible!)
Show us a caribou census count for Prudhoe Bay or Kuparuk that shows
an increase in caribou there! I've show what the census takers
say about that.
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease
in use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral
movements (Cameron et al. 1995)..."
As for studies saying there are fewer caribou around the oil
fields, here are several, because so far *every* caribou census
of the Central Arctic herd has shown the decline near the oil
infrastructure.
The first one is specific to the old Prudhoe Bay field. The quote
above cites this reference:
Cameron, R. D., E. A. Lenart, D. J. Reed, K. R. Whitten, and
W. T. Smith. 1995. Abundance and movements of caribou in the
oil field complex near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Rangifer
The rest are spread amongst the entire complex or specific to Kuparuk
and Milne Point.
Cameron R. D., D. J. Reed, J. R. Dau, and
W. T. Smith. 1992b. Redistribution of calving caribou in
response to oil field development on the Arctic Slope of
Alaska. Arctic 45:338-342.
Nellemann C, and R. D. Cameron. 1998. Cumulative impacts
of an evolving oil-field complex on the distribution of
calving caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1425-1430.
Bishop, S. C., and R. D. Cameron. 1990. Habitat use by
post-parturient female caribou of the Central Arctic
herd. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Wildlife
Society, Alaska Chapter, Juneau, Alaska, USA, 4-6 April
1990. Book of abstracts:9
Nellemann, C. and R. D. Cameron. 1996. Effects of petroleum
development on terrain preferences of calving caribou. Arctic
49:23-28.
Smith W. T., and R. D. Cameron. 1985. Reactions of large
groups of caribou to a pipeline corridor on the arctic
coastal plain of Alaska. Arctic 38:53-57.
Smith W. T., and R. D. Cameron, and D. J. Reed. 1994.
Distribution and movements of caribou in relation to roads and
pipelines, Kuparuk Development Area, 1978-90. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. Wildlife
Technical Bulletin 12
Curatolo, J. A., and S. M. Murphy. 1986. The effects of
pipelines, roads, and traffic on movements of caribou,
Rangifer tarandus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:218-224.
Murphy S. M., and J. A. Curatolo. 1987. Activity budgets and
movement rates of caribou encountering pipelines, roads, and
traffic in Northern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology
65:2483-2490.
Murphy, S. M. 1988. Caribou behavior and movements in the
Kuparuk oil field: implications for energetic and impact
analyses. Proceedings of the Third North American Caribou
Workshop. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska,
USA. Wildlife Technical Bulletin 8:196-210.
If you want to see the results graphically, which given your reading
impairment might help, try these charts:
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
Figure 4.5 show decline at Milne Point
Figure 4.6 shows Kuparuk
Figure 4.7 show shifts in calving
Regardless, here *is* what the biologists say,
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
Note that Cameron and Smith co-authored most of the published data
cited above, as well as that particular web page.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
>news:44e0...@news.acsalaska.net...
>>
>> the same
>> surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002.
...
>The Prudhoe caribou mystery is probably similar to the unicorn
>mystery. Once you believe in it, you find its signs
>everywhere. bookburn
The only mystery is why Jim Booth posts census figures for the
CAH and claims that the whole herd visits Prudhoe Bay. It
doesn't, and there are surveys that show how many caribou do.
Booth lies. What else is new...
bookburn
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
>>news:44e0...@news.acsalaska.net...
>>>
>>> *every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken from
>>> the same
>>> surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002.
>
> ...
>
>>The Prudhoe caribou mystery is probably similar to the unicorn
>>mystery. Once you believe in it, you find its signs
>>everywhere. bookburn
>
> The only mystery is why Jim Booth posts census figures for the
> CAH and claims that the whole herd visits Prudhoe Bay. It
> doesn't, and there are surveys that show how many caribou do.
>
> Booth lies. What else is new...
I think there is much to be said for lying.
I think it was Mark Twain who speculated that the separation between
telling the truth and lying is very vague. Lying is underrated,
because without it, it's hard to tell stories, flirt, appear
sincere, or get along with others in a testy world. Lying, story
telling, and drinking go together nicely.
Women are good at lying, and they are equally good at appreciating
another's lies. I also think it's a mistake not to lie to children
sometimes, because lying is probably a form of communicating.
Once when my 4 year-old niece was looking at me doubtfully, I told
her, "I got a haircut today." After thinking about that, she said,
"Did it hurt?" For some reason I said, "Yes." So we had something
in common: she and I both knew I was shading the truth.
Many years later, I told a lie publicly to a convocation of the
Liars Club of Alaska, no kidding. bookburn
Jim Booth
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
> >news:44e0...@news.acsalaska.net...
> >>
> >> *every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken from
> >> the same
> >> surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002.
>
> ...
>
> >The Prudhoe caribou mystery is probably similar to the unicorn
> >mystery. Once you believe in it, you find its signs
> >everywhere. bookburn
>
> The only mystery is why Jim Booth posts census figures for the
> CAH and claims that the whole herd visits Prudhoe Bay. It
> doesn't, and there are surveys that show how many caribou do.
>
> Booth lies. What else is new...
>
Bay." You can't read *OR* comprehend.
Re-read what was written....here is the statement once again:
Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
before oil production statted!"
I have produced facts that there are.
Now then Floyd....*YOU* produce one*single* recognized caribou count survey
that shows there has not been a huge increase in the Central Arctic Caribou
Herd. Just one Floyd.
You can't do it. As Bookburn stated....you have found some signs of mystery
and blown it out of reason.
OK Floyd....give me your numbers....say from 1974 to present....or those
most recent. Just numbers...none of your usual ramblings trying to twist the
number....just numbers of 1974 to recent. We can substract and see if the
numbers are lower than 1974...or larger than 1974.
I bet you won't do it.
JIM (Floyd, now thinks the whole herd is inside the oil field!)
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>OK Floyd.....when have I ever stated "....that the whole herd visits Prudhoe
>Bay." You can't read *OR* comprehend.
>Re-read what was written....here is the statement once again:
"*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken
from the same surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002."
Right there is where you said exactly that. You repeatedly used
overall CAH census figures to claim that caribou numbers at
Prudhoe Bay have increased. That's dumb, but you've done it how
many times now???
>Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>before oil production statted!"
That has been demonstrated, by *many* studies, to be wrong.
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou..."
Cameron et al
Why do you think all the biologists say there is a decrease in
use of the Prudhoe Bay area by caribou? How can there be more
caribou there, if the herd uses it 78% less???
Can you read????
>I have produced facts that there are.
You ignore facts. You produce facts that have *nothing* to say
about how many caribou are at Prudhoe Bay. You quote figures
that count Caribou at Nuiqsut, at the Canning River, on the
south side of the Brooks Range, and 10 to 50 miles south of
Prudhoe Bay, but you have *never* produced a single fact about
caribou *at* Prudhoe Bay.
I have: 78% reduction. Thats fewer, not more.
>Now then Floyd....*YOU* produce one*single* recognized caribou count survey
>that shows there has not been a huge increase in the Central Arctic Caribou
>Herd. Just one Floyd.
Every single survey of the Prudhoe Bay area has shown not just
no increase, but a decrease in caribou around Prudhoe Bay.
But you claim that a census of all animals in the Central Arctic
Caribou Herd are at Prudhoe Bay! Abjectly *rediculuous!*
How do you account for such stupid claims Jim? And so *many*
times now!
No census of the entire CAH has ever suggested that all animals
are at Prudhoe Bay. No census has ever suggested that at any
time there has ever been even a majority of the entire herd at
Prudhoe Bay since the oil development began. They say the
opposite!
>You can't do it. As Bookburn stated....you have found some signs of mystery
>and blown it out of reason.
The mystery is how you think you've shown *anything*. And
bookburn flat admits that your lies are lies indeed.
The biologists who did the surveys say the numbers at Prudhoe
Bay are *down* 78%, yet you claim there are more caribou there.
How you manage that leap of logic is a total mystery. The only
explaination is that you just really aren't too bright Jim.
You can't cite a single report or survey that says there are
more caribou at Prudhoe Bay. "You can't do it" because there
are none.
Moreover, when you did finally cite something, you gave (just
two) one that agreed with me and one that said *nothing* at all
about it! Amazing logic on your part...
*YOU* can't do it! Because you can't even read the reports...
>OK Floyd....give me your numbers....say from 1974 to present....or those
>most recent. Just numbers...none of your usual ramblings trying to twist the
>number....just numbers of 1974 to recent. We can substract and see if the
>numbers are lower than 1974...or larger than 1974.
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
Raymond D. Cameron, Walter T. Smith, Robert G. White, and Brad Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>I bet you won't do it.
I've post that quote so many times now, you'd think Jim Booth would
get his granddaugther to read it to him and explain it. Any kid
older than about 7 or 8 should be able to get it right.
>JIM (Floyd, now thinks the whole herd is inside the oil field!)
Only an idiot would say that, and *you* have said it repeatedly!
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:877j1bp...@apaflo.com...
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> >OK Floyd.....when have I ever stated "....that the whole herd visits
Prudhoe
> >Bay." You can't read *OR* comprehend.
> >Re-read what was written....here is the statement once again:
>
> "*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken
> from the same surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002."
>
> Right there is where you said exactly that. You repeatedly used
> overall CAH census figures to claim that caribou numbers at
> Prudhoe Bay have increased. That's dumb, but you've done it how
> many times now???
Never....not once....show us all where I *ever* said that.
>
> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
> >before oil production statted!"
>
> That has been demonstrated, by *many* studies, to be wrong.
Not a single one Floyd....in fact *all* studies have shown an increase by as
much as 26,000 animals. I have provided the cites....you provide nothiing.
Prudhoe Bay since the oil development began. They say the
> >OK Floyd....give me your numbers....say from 1974 to present....or those
> >most recent. Just numbers...none of your usual ramblings trying to twist
the
> >number....just numbers of 1974 to recent. We can substract and see if the
> >numbers are lower than 1974...or larger than 1974.
>
>
> >I bet you won't do it.
*Just* as I said....all BS and not *one* Central Arctic Caribou Herd survey
number! Not one!!!!
Floyd, you're a joke. Why are you sooooo afraid to admit the numbers in that
herd are upward of 5 times the number since oil work began in Prudhoe Bay?
JIM (enjoying watching Floyd panic because he just is clearly wrong!)
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> "*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken
>> from the same surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002."
>>
>> Right there is where you said exactly that. You repeatedly used
>> overall CAH census figures to claim that caribou numbers at
>> Prudhoe Bay have increased. That's dumb, but you've done it how
>> many times now???
>
>Never....not once....show us all where I *ever* said that.
You have *never* posted a census of caribou at Prudhoe Bay. Not once.
You have repeatedly posted census figures for the CAH as a whole.
You have repeatedly claimed that a CAH census means there are more
caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
That is false. And there *have* been surveys and studies done on
the data to determine how many CAH caribou use the Prudhoe Bay area.
I have of course repeatedly posted the summery written by Ray
Cameron who wrote the reports and supervised the studies:
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou ..."
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
How recalcitrant can you get?
>> >Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay than
>> >before oil production statted!"
>>
>> That has been demonstrated, by *many* studies, to be wrong.
>
>Not a single one Floyd....in fact *all* studies have shown an increase by as
>much as 26,000 animals. I have provided the cites....you provide nothiing.
So Jim Booth knows something that Ray Cameron doesn't???? Why is the guy
who did the studies and supervised the surveys saying it means what you
say is not true???
>*Just* as I said....all BS and not *one* Central Arctic Caribou Herd survey
>number! Not one!!!!
I've given it to you several times. A statement by the man who did the
reports and supervised all of the surveys, Ray Cammeron:
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou ..."
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>Floyd, you're a joke. Why are you sooooo afraid to admit the numbers in that
>herd are upward of 5 times the number since oil work began in Prudhoe Bay?
>
>JIM (enjoying watching Floyd panic because he just is clearly wrong!)
Clearly *you* are the joke and in a panic. But it is hilarious to watch
you project your situation on others.
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87y7tqo...@apaflo.com...
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> "*every* count has show the same numbers....they are taken
> >> from the same surveys. 6,000 1974 to 31, 857 2002."
> >>
> >> Right there is where you said exactly that. You repeatedly used
> >> overall CAH census figures to claim that caribou numbers at
> >> Prudhoe Bay have increased. That's dumb, but you've done it how
> >> many times now???
> >
> >Never....not once....show us all where I *ever* said that.
>
> You have *never* posted a census of caribou at Prudhoe Bay. Not once.
>
> You have repeatedly posted census figures for the CAH as a whole.
Yes.....*that* is just what we are writting about....remember the opening
statement:
"Ahhhhh...exuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
before oil production started!"
> You have repeatedly claimed that a CAH census means there are more
> caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
Never....never...never stated that at all.....no where. Read, once again
what I have said. Read what I have written,, read my claims....all are
factual.
>
> That is false. And there *have* been surveys and studies done on
> the data to determine how many CAH caribou use the Prudhoe Bay area.
> I have of course repeatedly posted the summery written by Ray
> Cameron who wrote the reports and supervised the studies:
No Floyd.....you twisted what was stated because I was and still are clearly
correct and, as usual, you need to try and find *something* that might
appear that you are correct. Nice try, but no cigar!
>
> >*Just* as I said....all BS and not *one* Central Arctic Caribou Herd
survey
> >number! Not one!!!!
>
> >Floyd, you're a joke. Why are you sooooo afraid to admit the numbers in
that
> >herd are upward of 5 times the number since oil work began in Prudhoe
Bay?
Floyd...you are so confused that another writer *had* to correct you because
you *didn't* even*know* the boundries of Prudhoe Bay! That was a laugh!!
JIM (watching Floyd twistiing and turning to find something that will exuse
his faulty arguement!)
Floyd L. Davidson
>caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
>
>That is false. And there *have* been surveys and studies done on
>the data to determine how many CAH caribou use the Prudhoe Bay area.
>I have of course repeatedly posted the summery written by Ray
>Cameron who wrote the reports and supervised the studies:
>
> "Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
> use by caribou ..."
> http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
>
>How recalcitrant can you get?
Well, much to my astonishment, Jim Booth continues to send me
email, but this time he left out all of the insults and admitted
he was wrong to start with and just couldn't back down, which is
why he posted so many lies.
He did read the articles I've cited, and admits that there have
been at least three studies by biologists that have verified the
reduced number of caribou around Prudhoe Bay since oil
development started.
I would rather he post it, but I guess that ends this thread.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You have *never* posted a census of caribou at Prudhoe Bay. Not once.
>>
>> You have repeatedly posted census figures for the CAH as a whole.
>
>Yes.....*that* is just what we are writting about....remember the opening
>statement:
>
>"Ahhhhh...exuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
>before oil production started!"
Jim, why are you saying one thing in email, and posting
something different here? I thought your email was more
appropriate, why didn't you post it?
Regardless, the census of the CAH does *not* measure how many
caribou are "around Prudhoe Bay".
It measures how many caribou are in the CAH, and not how many of
them ever go near Prudhoe. Rather clearly, the herd virtually
*all* went to Prudhoe Bay *before* oil development started
there, and now only a relative few animals that approach Prudhoe
Bay.
"Caribou abundance within the main industrial complex as well
as east-west movements through that area were significantly
lower than for other areas occupied by caribou along the
arctic coast (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively).
Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades. Occurrence of caribou that use
the complex, however, is reportedly unrelated to distance from
infrastructure (Cronin et al. 1998)."
Biological Science Report, USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001
Griffith, B., D. C. Douglas, N. E. Walsh, D. D. Young,
T. R. McCabe, D. E. Russell, R. G. White, R. D. Cameron, and
K. R. Whitten. 2002. The Porcupine caribou herd. Pages 8-37 in
D. C. Douglas, P. E. Reynolds, and E. B. Rhode, editors. Arctic
Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research
summaries. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.
>> You have repeatedly claimed that a CAH census means there are more
>> caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
>
>Never....never...never stated that at all.....no where. Read, once again
>what I have said. Read what I have written,, read my claims....all are
>factual.
So now you are going to play word weasel, and claim that caribou
"around" Prudhoe Bay means caribou that are anywhere within 200
miles, but does not mean caribou at Prudhoe Bay... What are you
smoking?
The caribou calving 15 mile south of Prudhoe Bay are *not* "around
Prudhoe Bay".
>Floyd...you are so confused that another writer *had* to correct you because
>you *didn't* even*know* the boundries of Prudhoe Bay! That was a laugh!!
Really now. Just where did you dig that myth up at.
>JIM (watching Floyd twistiing and turning to find something that will exuse
>his faulty arguement!)
You are the one playing word weasel! Grin...
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:878xlpo...@apaflo.com...
> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ahhhhh...exuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
> >before oil production started!"
>
> Jim, why are you saying one thing in email, and posting
> something different here? I thought your email was more
> appropriate, why didn't you post it?
I'll forget this childish attempt by Floyd.
JIM
Jim Booth
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87d5b1o...@apaflo.com...
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >You have repeatedly claimed that a CAH census means there are more
> >caribou at Prudhoe Bay.
> >
> >That is false. And there *have* been surveys and studies done on
> >the data to determine how many CAH caribou use the Prudhoe Bay area.
> >I have of course repeatedly posted the summery written by Ray
> >Cameron who wrote the reports and supervised the studies:
> >
> > "Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
> > use by caribou ..."
> > http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
> >
> >How recalcitrant can you get?
>
Caribou Herd survey counts.....and I see you agree with the published
numbers I have given you and the cites....we will try it your way.
We can both agree that in 1974, just before develpment of Prudhoe Bay, there
were 6,000 animals in the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. Now then....for sake
of argument...*all* 6,000 animals at one time or another used what is now
consider the borders of Prudhoe Bay. Now remember that 6,000 animal number
we agreed with.
Now then, from Fish and Game survey counts (most recent published) shows the
Central Arctic Caribou Herd having increased to 31,875 animals....that
number I think we can both agree with.
Now then, since you want to forget what the discussion was about and decided
on your own that my statement, "Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more*
caribou around Prudhoe Bay then before oil production started!"
Soooo, let us use the figures you have provided. According to your cites, a
claim has been estimated that 78% reduction in the Central Arctic Caribou
Herd use of what is considered Prudhoe Bay. OK, let us say then, by the per
cent number you gave us, that 78% of the herd absolutely refuses to step
hoof onto what is now called Prudhoe Bay. The flip side of that number means
that 22% of the herd *DOES* use Prudhoe Bay.
Now for some simple math....I think you can do this to double check my
figures...take 22% (number of Central Arctic Caribou Herd that is willing to
use Prudhoe Bay) of 31,857 and that means 7,009 animals (rounded to the
nearest number) use Prudhoe Bay.
Now, we subtract 7,009 animals now using Prudhoe Bay (latest survey counts)
from the 100% number of 1974 which was 6,000 animals. Oh golly.....an
increase of 1,009 animals using that area......over 33% more!!!!
Floyd...which ever way you want to do it.....wiggle and claim on Prudhoe
Bay....or as what was attempted being the Central Arctic Caribou Herd will
make *no* difference....there are more animals.
Now maybe you see the light and will just drift off.......as usual.
JIM (how many more ways does it take to inform poor Floyd!)
Floyd L. Davidson
>> >How recalcitrant can you get?
Recalcitrant enough that Jim won't bother to read the surveys
and reports that this discussion is based on, even though I've
pointed them out, quoted them, and given URLs several times (in
virtually every single article I've posted in this thread).
He keeps saying he has, but continues to demonstrate otherwise.
And here *finally* Jim tells us what form of abject stupidity it
is that he is basing all of this silliness on! And is this ever
a *HOOT!* ... which Jim would have avoided by simply *reading*
the reference materials provided!
(I'll admit to being wrong about one thing though! I thought
Jim was going to claim the whole thing was based on the meaning
of "around", as in all caribou within 100 miles of Prudhoe are
"around" Prudhoe. Guess I scared poor Jim away from that one...
and he promptly jumped from the frying pan into the fire.)
>Well Floyd....since you want to twist and wiggle on the Central Arctic
>Caribou Herd survey counts.....and I see you agree with the published
>numbers I have given you and the cites....we will try it your way.
Note that you gave two cites, one that sounded as if I'd written
it (it supported everything I've been saying and cited the exact
same resources, and agreed with *nothing* you've ever said), and
the other one said *nothing* about numbers from any "survey
counts" (you failed to read it, and assumed that it gave census
counts for the CAH, which it didn't).
Enough background, lets get to the really fun part:
>We can both agree that in 1974, just before develpment of Prudhoe Bay, there
>were 6,000 animals in the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. Now then....for sake
>of argument...*all* 6,000 animals at one time or another used what is now
>consider the borders of Prudhoe Bay. Now remember that 6,000 animal number
>we agreed with.
>
>Now then, from Fish and Game survey counts (most recent published) shows the
>Central Arctic Caribou Herd having increased to 31,875 animals....that
>number I think we can both agree with.
>
>Now then, since you want to forget what the discussion was about and decided
>on your own that my statement, "Ahhhhh...excuse me, but there are *more*
>caribou around Prudhoe Bay then before oil production started!"
>
>Soooo, let us use the figures you have provided. According to your cites, a
>claim has been estimated that 78% reduction in the Central Arctic Caribou
>Herd use of what is considered Prudhoe Bay. OK, let us say then, by the per
>cent number you gave us, that 78% of the herd absolutely refuses to step
I *told* you long ago to *read* the f***ing reports Jim! If you
had, you would know better than to try pulling this kind of a
stunt.
The statement was that there is a 78% reduction in *use* of the
Prudhoe Bay area. They did *not* say that 78% of the herd does
not use Prudhoe Bay.
The figures are based on statements like this, which leave *no*
question that your interpretation is not correct:
"Figure 4.5. Decline in percentage abundance of caribou from
the Central Arctic herd west of the Milne Point Road,
Kuparuk petroleum development area, Alaska (Spearman's Rank,
P < 0.02), and changes in total numbers of caribou observed
north of the Spine Road (see Fig. 4.3), 1979-1987. (from
Cameron et al. 1992b)"
Note the "changes in total numbers of caribou observed". This is
*not* based on a percentage of the herd size. It is based on how
many caribou are actually counted in the area.
There are other similar statements,
"In fact, relative occurrence of caribou in the
heavily-developed western portion of the Kuparuk petroleum
development area declined significantly from 1979 through
1987, independent of total abundance (Fig. 4.5) (Cameron et
al. 1992b)."
>hoof onto what is now called Prudhoe Bay. The flip side of that number means
>that 22% of the herd *DOES* use Prudhoe Bay.
That is not correct. They said there was a 78% decline in
*usage*, which they measured as the number of caribou per square
kilometer of area. The figures shown in one graph are fairly
interesting, because the density was 3.2 caribou/km^2 for a road
density of 0 (pre-development) at Kuparuk, and ranged down to
about 0.5 caribou/km^2 with a road density of 0.6-0.9 km/km^2.
Hmmm... a 84% reduction in use!
If that was 6000 animals as you agreed to above, it is now 4680
animals *fewer*, or 22% of the 6000 figure, not 22% of the
current herd size. (I expect that a bright 3rd grader would
have gotten that right Jim, so we'll figure you at about an
"average" for the third grade?)
I've deleted the rest of your calculations, because it does not
apply to anything on this planet.
...
>Floyd...which ever way you want to do it.....wiggle and claim on Prudhoe
>Bay....or as what was attempted being the Central Arctic Caribou Herd will
>make *no* difference....there are more animals.
Not at Prudhoe Bay there aren't! Don't miss the point this time
Jim, read it *carefully* (emphasis added for your benefit):
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% *decrease*
*in* *use* by caribou..."
>Now maybe you see the light and will just drift off.......as usual.
You've tried twice now to duck and run by shifting your messages
to email, which is what *you* end up doing in almost every
exchange we ever have. But you're still cornered.
>JIM (how many more ways does it take to inform poor Floyd!)
Your problem solving skills are faulty... but it has been good
for a serious bit of laughing. It took more than ten minutes
after I read your article before I could even get up from the
floor and sit in a chair.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:878xlpo...@apaflo.com...
>> "Jim Booth" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Ahhhhh...exuse me, but there are *more* caribou around Prudhoe Bay that
>> >before oil production started!"
>>
>> Jim, why are you saying one thing in email, and posting
>> something different here? I thought your email was more
>> appropriate, why didn't you post it?
>
>I'll forget this childish attempt by Floyd.
Given the childishness of your other article trying to explain
yourself, you *really* *should* have stayed with this one.