Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 218

Letting Alaska Swap State Land With the Feds to Build an Emergency Access Road Through a Wildlife Refuge to an Isolated Town

Argument in favor

To ensure the safety of the people who live in isolated King Cove when air evacuations aren’t possible because of weather a 10-mile, single-lane gravel should be built on the federal wildlife and wilderness areas between King Cove and the nearby town of Cold Bay.

Gary's Opinion
···
07/20/2017
For some reason we always seem to be ever so ready to regulate land in Alaska , where 99 percent of the people will never see the land or be impacted by it. Let Alaska do what Alaska sees as in its best interest.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
07/20/2017
I think the trade off value in building an 11-mile emergency access road for the people of King Cove over the protection of the wildlife is worth the $500,000. It's a right that Alaskan people deserve in case of an emergency. Its also unfair to restrict them to just only air travel as their primary mode of transportation. They deserve a road. I understand the importance of preserving wildlife, however, with the gaining of state land in the resolution I believe it should be voted for.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Matthew's Opinion
···
07/20/2017
This seems appropriate, and reasonable policies that will help the public need to be enacted.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

There are other ways to evacuate people experiencing medical emergencies that don’t involve building a road that irreparably damages a federal wildlife refuge. If air evacuations in bad weather are dangerous, build a new airport or get an ice capable ship to go to King Cove.

Kyle's Opinion
···
07/20/2017
1) this deal is quite lopsided. 2) this deal smells of big oil shrouded in the guise of public safety.
Like (102)
Follow
Share
Jenny's Opinion
···
07/20/2017
I'm not clear about why this land needs to be given to the Feds, in order to build a road that will take much less land. I'm not against the people of this town getting a road, but am questioning the larger picture. Does the road have to be through the wildlife preserve? Where do I find more info?
Like (97)
Follow
Share
collins1129's Opinion
···
07/19/2017
If the new federal land was to be designated as wildlife refuge then I would say yes, but as this decreases the amount of protected land I strongly oppose this bill. We need to protect our environment and keep it safe from further destruction, notably in the form of possible federal leasing to fossil fuel companies.
Like (77)
Follow
Share
    For some reason we always seem to be ever so ready to regulate land in Alaska , where 99 percent of the people will never see the land or be impacted by it. Let Alaska do what Alaska sees as in its best interest.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    1) this deal is quite lopsided. 2) this deal smells of big oil shrouded in the guise of public safety.
    Like (102)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm not clear about why this land needs to be given to the Feds, in order to build a road that will take much less land. I'm not against the people of this town getting a road, but am questioning the larger picture. Does the road have to be through the wildlife preserve? Where do I find more info?
    Like (97)
    Follow
    Share
    This should be a decision for Alaskan citizens. 337 acres valued the same as 43000 acres is hard for me to see. Another negative is giving federal govt more land to lease or sell to oil industry. This administration is fossil fuel supporters even if it takes us back a century in technology. Drilling, fracking, strip mining, & deforestation can be very harmful for our land, air, water, & wildlife.
    Like (93)
    Follow
    Share
    If the new federal land was to be designated as wildlife refuge then I would say yes, but as this decreases the amount of protected land I strongly oppose this bill. We need to protect our environment and keep it safe from further destruction, notably in the form of possible federal leasing to fossil fuel companies.
    Like (77)
    Follow
    Share
    This seems like a lopsided deal, which alone should ring alarm bells. I'm sure big oil is behind this.
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    I can't seem to follow the money trail based on the information provided. In most cases where indigenous people have issues that the government is willing to look at or address, it's rarely for the benefit of the indigenous. Until I know more, I oppose this completely.
    Like (34)
    Follow
    Share
    No! This is an excuse by big oil to put roads where they shouldn't be! Just no!
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    The residents of Kings Cove know the risks of living on the far side of a wilderness. This bill must not pass. The Wilderness Act explicit states no mechanized or motorized travel within the wilderness boundaries. I suspect this is less about public safety and more about weakening the Wilderness Act. I strongly urge a no vote!
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    This stinks to high heaven. No!
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    No. the Federal government should not take public land to give to the gas and oil billionaires for their personal profit and short term gain. Enough already.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Somebody somewhere is due to make a ton of money from this bill and it isn't a little town in the middle of Alaska.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Sounds like a land grab. How much oil/gas/gold is in the tens of thousands of acres oF land exchanged for a few hundred acres? If there are already.roads in the preserve that did not require such a vast exchange, just connect them to the town. This is not an altruistic gesture. It does not add up. Give them an emergency road but take their insurance?
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    The current administration has repeatedly said they want to give these decisions to the states, so why is this different? There's far more to this than meets the eye. Follow the dollar to find out what this is really about.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a bad idea being sold as compassionate. Sounds to me like another corporate grab with no consideration of the destruction of wilderness, the death of wildlife, and even the preference of the people for living in beauty and nature. No road has to go through the middle of designated wilderness. Sounds like a corporate landgrab for the energy industry to which many of our politicians are so beholden. Hint: 327 acres does not equal 4,000 acres. Ever. No more environmental destruction for the profit of the 1%.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    It's a protected area why are you living there to begin with !
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This should be voted on by the people in the state of Alaska.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    I certainly understand the position of Cool Bay and cognitive of the millions of unused acres in Alaska, but it may be a camels nose under the tent flap. Cool Bay gets a road and Alaska yields control. What ever happened to oil revenue?
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    They choose to live there. Our land needs to be protected. Build an adequate medical center & wherever else they need in town. They got in there with no roads obviously
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    I have no doubt that oil/gas industry is behind this.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE