Jake

Thanks, good info. Hopefully the Butterfly glacier isn't too broken up at the bottom to allow access to the upper portion and over to Thunder Basin.

Anyone ever climbed from the end of the Napeequa valley up and over the Butterfly or Moth Glaciers down to Thunder Basin? Any feasible routes to get across that divide in late season?

Where does the trail up to Terror Basin branch off of the old logging road? Somehow we missed it last time and ended up getting to Terror Creek on another rough but flagged trail that eventually leads up the ridge to the Barrier.

Satisfied with what you ordered online from these guys? How good is the real store in Bend?

I like sweetwater. The carbon filters work better than the ceramic filters in my experience.

I'm looking at something to keep my feet warmer in ski boots. The chemical warmers work until it starts to get real cold, and then forget about it. Any luck with hotronics? They are pretty expensive. Or, how about the Bootglove? Other ideas?

Excellent. I'm looking to use them on ski boots in a more base camp style and for travel. The bootles look, uh, interesting. May have to test them out too. They look good for the backcountry.

Anybody used these boots dryers ? Do boot dryers that absorb moisture work at all? Useful or not?

So is this winter gonna be another loser? It started off looking great, and has gone downhill ever since. Where's the damn snow? Are we screwed? The weatherman saying maybe snow next week... I don't want to get my hopes up.

However... the crux of the argument isn't about science - it's about aesthetics. A drilling operation in the Arctic Refuge wouldn't necessarily drive caribou to extinction (polar bears are already doomed due to the melting polar ice cap) - but it would take away the aura of wilderness. Think of it in the same way that a tram up Mt. Rainier wouldn't really hurt the mountain but would most likely disturb visitors. Ok, this argument makes sense. So the question is whether or not to leave it alone, or develop it. Should we have some drilling operations and some piplines in the middle of nowhere where not many people will see them, or should we leave it undisturbed?

OK, but then explain these pictures, which, in the interest of full disclosure, are from anwr.org. About it being in a national wildlife refuge, so what? When Congress designated the area as a refuge, it also specifically set aside an area for oil exploration. Both the refuge and the area for exploration were created together. Hence, arguing that drilling is wrong based solely on the designation of the region as a refuge doesn't make sense. The refuge was created with the possibility of drilling in mind. Bears caribou map

I'll check out the links, though I'm curious just how much impact it would have on animals. Hasn't the caribou heard dramatically increased since the '70s and the onset of North Slope operations? And what about pics of bear and caribou wandering around by drilling operations and pipelines apparently undisturbed? You are right though that ANWR shouldn't be attached to Def. Approps.

Everything you wrote seems accurate to me...

Agreed. You have to get info from everywhere. Does the state of Alaska directly fund it? Or, does money come from the interest groups etc? Nevertheless, is their information incorrect? That is the question I am interested in. By the way, I'm not trying to hijack your thread, though you did put in the bit about writing your Senator. I'm just interested in trying to get an accurate account of what is going on.

Sweet Pics! Defitely want to check that area out sometime. I wonder how many people have truly done their homework on ANWR and aren't just jumping on the bandwagon. This site, a pro-ANWR site, does seem to have good facts. http://www.anwr.org/ "Lastly at the top of ANWR, there is a special area of 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Coastal Plain called the “10-02” Area. The 10-02 Area takes its name from the section of the Congressional bill, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), that expanded ANWR in 1980. In Section 10-02 Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for “oil and gas exploration”. This 10-02 Area is classified legally neither as “refuge” nor as “wilderness”, rather defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration due to its well-known geological evidence of potential large hydrocarbon deposits. The 10-02 area, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by ANWR “wilderness” area and the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River and ANWR outer border. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains. Nine months of the year is covered with snow and ice and practically void of life. Three of those months are in total 24 hour darkness. In the 6 weeks of summer the coastal plain is dotted with thousands of lakes and is covered by boggy tundra on permafrost (permanently frozen ground). The 10-02 Area is a further anomaly within ANWR’s border in that it contains 92,000 acres of private land owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) of Kaktovik, ANWR’s only settlement and population. The subsurface rights of this 92,000 acres are owned by the Inupiat native organization the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). To say or suggest then that “the Refuge” (meaning ANWR’s entire area) would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. The Congressional definitions of “refuge” and “wilderness”, which comprises over 92% of the ANWR area, forbids any development of any kind. To further specify the definition of land that could be used in ANWR Congress has limited any future development footprint size to 2000 acres. This means that within the 1.5 million acres of the 10-02 Area and with in the total 19.6 million acres of ANWR …..ONLY 2000 ACRES CAN BE USED! That’s less than ½ of 1% of the total area of ANWR. The 10-02 area however, cannot be explored despite its specific oil and gas definition without Congressional approval. And it is at this point that the debate now stands. "