[CA0DA]

For those simply upvoting without reading the article, this case is more nuanced than the headline may sound:

> Residents in the community of King Cove want to exchange land to build a gravel road through the refuge to provide access to an all-weather airport in nearby Cold Bay for medical transports.

[mod]

I personally don't consider that nuanced.

I live five miles from pavement, an hour from a hospital, so I understand these concerns.

I would be absolutely disgusted if they paved through my local national forest for some quicker access to... Anything. Literally anything.

Those people all have the choice to leave. Living in remote places comes with many, many tradeoffs and inconveniences. There's no safety in the wilderness.

Keep the wild places wild. There's so little left.

[MomoXenosaga]

We know from history that the destruction of the jungle's began with roads making them accessible to illegal loggers, miners and hunters. The road to hell...

[WalterBright]

A lot of illegal logging of old growth goes on in Washington State adjacent to the roads.

[thghtihadanacct]

100%

[phkahler]

It's not about the residents of King Cove. BTW they've either been without that road for 40 years, or moved there knowing the situation.

It's about power and control if you go by this part:

“The split panel decision would allow the secretary, without any public process or without compliance with any other laws, to engage in a backroom land exchange,”

[ivanhoe]

> they've either been without that road for 40 years, or moved there knowing the situation.

It's a really weird argument, you're basically saying that people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade their infrastructure ever? Imagine saying that for some poor country: "Oh, well, they either had no running water before, or they knew the situation before moving there, so screw them, they can just continue walking 5 miles every day to bring water from the spring".

Also they've been without that road a lot longer than 40 years, King Cove exists since at least 1930s. Population is dropping so I doubt many people have been moving there, most of people live there their whole life....and if they get sick or injured and planes can't land, they're screwed without that road.

[WalterBright]

> people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade their infrastructure ever?

In a wilderness area? No.

[ivanhoe]

Whole US were a wilderness once... you're basically punishing them for not destroying their nature earlier on, like the rest of us did...

[WalterBright]

We have to stop the destruction of the wilderness at some point, or we'll all die.

[ivanhoe]

Absolutely, WE should do exactly that (and there's a plenty of things that we can do to protect nature around ourselves) - instead of living in hyper-urbanized cities and pissing online on people who actually live for a century or more in a real untouched wilderness and haven't destroyed it in all that time, and now want one stupid gravel road through that unimaginably wast area. It's a raindrop in the ocean, but people love to focus their energy on isolated, far-away problems, rather than tackling real problems and the wider image.

[asdfk-12]

Please consider visiting rural Alaska. It might be more vast than you imagine. Please consider there are people in this community who need access to a critical resource that you likely take for granted. This particular example isn't a good 'hill to die on'.

[macinjosh]

Wow, you should see a therapist.

[WalterBright]

BTW, if I was President, you'd see a lot more land become federally protected wilderness in the lower 48. Marine areas, too. National parks would get much bigger. If you want to see that, write me in on your 2024 ballot!

[drekipus]

You make it sound like not being allowed a chocolate bar is a form of punishment

[notch656a]

45% of households in King Cove have children who had no choice in whether the road is there or not 40 years ago. It's hard to just blame them that "they knew the roads weren't there" when they were born thus they're not allowed roads to medical care the way I (and probably you) are.

[mod]

I would sooner take the children away or force the residents to move than pave a road through the Alaskan wilderness.

I wouldn't do those things either, though. People get to choose where and how to raise their children. Children don't get a say so in virtually anything that affects them.

"Think of the children" is not a good argument.

Also the whole population is like 1200 people. We're talking about a relative handful of kids. Like one very small elementary school (edit: Google search says there's 87 kids in PK-12th grade. Combined.)

[ivanhoe]

We destroyed our local wilderness long time ago to make our lives safer and easier and more comfortable - and now we're judging others for wanting the same for their town...

[drekipus]

Yes because we realise the mistakes

[ivanhoe]

Did we really? Just go around and see all those sterile lawns in front of houses, drowned in herbicides and fertilizers, wasting all that space that could be easily turned into gardens or beautiful meadows (you literally just have to leave it alone and it will happen on its own).

But we're pissed on others for wanting a single gravel road, so that they don't die if some emergency happens...

As the old Serbian saying goes: "it's easy to beat hawthorns with someone else's penis"...

[yellowapple]

Then we should be leading by example. I know there's a lot more I could be doing to preserve and restore ecosystems local to me before I've any right to demand the same of folks thousands of miles away.

[soupbowl]

Rules for thee not for me.

[notch656a]

>BTW they've either been without that road for 40 years, or moved there knowing the situation.

Is patently false. It's not "think of the children." It's pointing out that statement was a vicious lie. I'm pointing out they've simply ignored the people who were born there.

We're talking about a road connecting two closest communities. You've said yourelf you wouldn't do the things to remove these residents from these communities. I would find it hypocritical for someone to take advantages of roads in their own community while denying this community a single road to the closest airport to the kind of medical services that those in the lower 48 can drive to (even if it takes them awhile).

[Sharlin]

Well, children are not even asked whether they want to be created, never mind where they want to be born.

[hanniabu]

That's a pretty fucked up clause

[notch656a]

A well connected, wealthy person with no real worries about their own access to medical professionals and no real roots in Alaska feigning to act for the good of nature but in the process acting against the interest of these communities? Say it aint so.

[mod]

What does 97 year old Jimmy Carter have to gain from making a stand here?

I cannot come up with any motivations besides the guy actually just wants to protect the wild.

He grew up close to the land, so that makes sense to me.

[notch656a]

He gets to look like he's saving the wilderness while denying advancement in access to medical care to majority native/Asian community.

[drekipus]

Of course it's about race. Naturally he's a white supremacist. If they were white people he would be mowing down the trees himself.

[thrdbndndn]

Jimmy Carter grew up in Alaska? Never heard of that.

I can't find a single occurrence of "alaska" in his Wikipedia article. Got any ref?

Edit: I don't mind the downvote, but could someone explain if I missed something obvious?

[mek6800d2]

Read the comment again ... slowly -- mod has a dense writing style that may be difficult to comprehend on first reading. People can actually live "close to the land" all over the world. Farmers, for example. I think a few may even be found in Georgia.

[DennisP]

"Close to the land" does not mean "close to that particular land."

[thrdbndndn]

Sorry for being obtuse, I genuinely don't get what that means. Don't almost every single person live close to the land?

[frosted-flakes]

Living "close to the land" means to be familiar and comfortable with, and reliant on, what "the land" (that is, nature) has to offer. The opposite of a city-dweller, basically.

[bee_rider]

Carter had a fairly rural upbringing.

[WalterBright]

The Alaskan wilderness belongs to all of us.

The people there are welcome to enjoy the wilderness. Not pave it.

[notch656a]

King cove is almost 50% ethnically native, not to mention the rest of whom have have that as their home regardless of the home of their ancestors. Considering that and their historical ties to the land, I'd say they have a little more say than the average lower 48er.

[WalterBright]

They own the land they live on, not the surrounding wilderness, which belongs equally to all of us.

I don't have any claim whatsoever to the lands of my ancestors, either. Nor do I have any claim on the land my neighbors live on, or the nearby park.

[asdfk-12]

This reads like imperialism. Do you think Alaskans should be able to have a say in whether land is developed or improved adjacent to where you live, say, in Alabama? Wouldn't make much sense to me..

[WalterBright]

The wilderness area is under Federal protection. That means we all have a say, not just Alaskans.

[yellowapple]

The Alaskan wilderness first and foremost belongs to the people who have been living as part of it for generations. They are in a much better position to balance wilderness preservation v. the needs of human habitation than you or I. We are welcome to visit, but they are the ones calling it home - and have far more of a vested interest in preserving and stewarding it than we do.

[swayvil]

We upvote what we like, downvote what we don't like. Such dog damn simple creatures we are.