From The Wilderness Society Action Alert Web Page
Senators and Representative:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of oil that could be economically recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to a mere six months supply for the nation. Furthermore, it would not be extracted, refined, and become available to American consumers for 10 years at best.

It's time to stand up to the Special Interests that are driving policy in this Congress. Our country simply can't drill its way out of our energy problem.  The U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population, consumes 24% of the world's energy, yet only has 3% of the world's known oil reserves. If we opened all our parks, refuges, and coastlines to drilling, we still wouldn't meet all of our current oil demand, or affect oil prices.  The only way towards energy independence is through conservation and alternative energy sources.).

Already the vast majority of Alaska is open for oil drilling; the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge amounts to but a small fraction of that area, and by comparison can provide at best an insignificant amount of oil. It deserves to remain under protection.

The track record of the oil industry in bringing oil to market over land or ocean testifies to its inability to guarantee the environment a reasonable level of protection.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge continues to come under attack from big oil interests intent on misleading the American public into thinking that Arctic oil will somehow miraculously solve all of energy problems.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's time for those misrepresentations to stop.

I urge you to OPPOSE Sen. Murkowski's energy bill, S. 388, because
- It will do nothing to decrease energy costs or improve our energy security.
- Instead, it would throw the doors of what little is left of our undeveloped public lands, leaving unacceptable, damage to our wild lands.  Ninety-five percent of BLM lands in the lower 48 states are already open to the oil and gas industry.
- It will hand over to state agencies federal land management authority of oil and gas leases.  State oil and gas commissions are notorious for being controlled by industry interests.
- Finally, it calls for opening up the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development, which makes no sense from an economic, energy, or ecological standpoint.

To that end, I urge you to CO-SPONSOR the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Act, H.R. 770/S. 411, because it would provide lasting protection for America's last frontier.

Arctic oil drilling and expanded public land oil & gas development will neither make a dent towards meeting our energy needs nor ease high energy prices.  Please do all you can to protect America's public wildlands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, from oil and gas development.

Sincerely,

Dr. Alan R.P. Journet
2812 Oakshire Circle
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Email: ajournet@biology.semo.edu

From the Working Assets Action Alert Web Page
Dear Senator Jean Carnahan:
Dear Senator Christopher Bond:

The 1.6 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the United States' premier birthing and nursing ground for arctic wildlife including grizzly and polar bears, musk oxen, the arctic fox, wolves and wolverines, 135 bird species, and a migrating herd of 180,000 caribou which supports thousands of native people still living in harmony with this rugged land. 

Oil drilling in this pristine refuge promises potentially devastating consequences for the region's fragile habitat, native communities and unparalleled wildlife. 

Senator Frank Murkowski, sponsor of S.389, a sweeping energy bill which would allow oil and gas development in this Arctic refuge, asserts that drilling can be conducted without harming wildlife and the environment. Such claims don’t hold up, however. For instance: 

-- An average of 409 spills have occurred annually on Alaska’s North Slope since 1996, while operations produce tons of nitrogen oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, and large amounts of sewage, garbage and scrap metal. The drilling sites in the Arctic Refuge would be strewn throughout the delicate coastal plain, linked by pipelines and roads. This is not clean, unobtrusive drilling.

-- The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the oil that could be extracted would fuel the U.S. market for less than six months. Consider that increasing fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles to an average of 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years -- more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic Refuge! This is not realistic energy for the future.

-- The oil market is global, and oil from the Arctic Refuge would expand global oil reserves by just 0.3 percent -- a quantity far too inconsequential to affect prices at the pump or elsewhere. This plan will not lower gas prices.

-- Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have no impact on California's electricity problems or any other state's electricity problems. Most U.S. electric power plants do not use oil. Less than 1 percent of California's electricity is generated by burning oil, and the average for the United States as a whole is only 3 percent. Besides, no oil from the Refuge would flow to refineries for at least a decade. This is not a solution for the California power crisis.

Despite all this, Senator Murkowski, President Bush and oil industry executives continue to push for oil development in this fragile corner of the Arctic.

This policy will ravage one of the last truly wild landscapes in the United States. Please respect our children’s and grandchildren’s environmental heritage and keep the drilling rigs out of the Arctic. 

Sincerely,


Alan R.P. Journet
    

From The Wilderness Society Action Alert Web Page
National Park Service
Ranger Activity Division
1849 C Street, NW, Rm 7408
Washington, DC  20240

To whom it may concern:

As a professional ecologist and conservation biologist, I am acutely aware
of the environmental destruction that can be wrought upon an area
by snowmobiles. As a result, I strongly support attempts to reign
in the excesses of those dedicated to destruction of our National
Parks by means of these vehicles.

I strongly support the Park Service's Preferred Alternative 1 for Rocky Mountain National Park to close Trail Ridge Road to snowmobiles, and to maintain the closure of Summerland Park Snowmobile Trail and Bowen Gulch Access Trail.

Snowmobiles are high impact "thrill-craft" and have been shown to cause lasting damage to air and water quality, visitor enjoyment, public health and safety, natural quiet and wildlife.  According to the EPA, the two-stroke engines which power nearly all snowmobiles dump up to *30 percent* of their fuel mixture directly out the tailpipe.

Snowmobilers already have immense access to adjacent Forest Service lands, areas that are extremely popular with snowmobile users.  Closing Trail Ridge Road will not affect that access,but will do much to protect the integrity of the Park and the enjoyment of many others who visit the park.

Thank you.

Alan R.P. Journet
2812 Oakshire Circle
Cape Girardeau  MO 63701
ajournet@biology.semo.edu

From The Wilderness Society Action Alert Web Page
Dear Forest Supervisor,

I am writing to comment on the forest plan revisions for National Forests throughout the Southern Appalachians.  ALL the remaining roadless areas in the Southern Appalachians should be protected. For instance, all inventoried roadless areas adjacent to wilderness should be designated as Wilderness Study Areas in the plan revisions.  And there are many other areas that deserve protection, including:

- Oakey Mountain and Blue Mountain on the Talladega National Forest and Brushy Fork on the Bankhead National Forest, both in Alabama
- Kelly Ridge, Mountaintown, Three Forks, Patterson Gap and Rabun Bald on the Chattahoochee-Oconee in Georgia; and 
- Flint Mill, Slide Hollow, Rogers Ridge, Bald Mountain, Upper Iron Mountain and Flats Mountain on the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. 

We need more wilderness in the Southern Appalachians. 

What is now protected in the region as Wilderness --only 1% of National Forest land -- is too little. 

The plan revision offers an excellent opportunity to protect the last remaining roadless areas on federal public lands, lands that belong to the American people.

Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
2812 Oakshire Circle
Cape Girardeau  MO 63701
ajournet@biology.semo.edu