In a move that astounded proponents of a "Maine Woods National Park and Preserve," the Maine Legislature has passed a resolution opposing a feasibility study into the creation of such a park.
On June 15, Maine Senate President Kevin Raye introduced a resolution, SP 519, which opposes even a feasibility study to evaluate the benefits and costs of creating a national park in the Maine Woods. The Senate voted the same day 31 to 3 to pass this resolution.
There was no meaningful notice, no public hearing, no opportunity to present any information in response to this sneak attack. The Maine House of Representatives went along without a roll call vote.
It’s not too late!
The resolution is expected to come up for another vote in each house very soon. If you live in Maine, please call now and urge your elected representatives to oppose this undemocratic action.
You can leave a message at:
Maine Senate switchboard: 800-423-6900
Maine House of Representatives switchboard: 800-423-2900
Partly in reaction to that move, the park's proponents launched a new website to promote such an addition to the National Park System. On that site you can find details on the 3.2 million acre site proposed for Maine's Moosehead-Katahdin region.
There's a map that shows where the park would be located, a fact sheet that lists the resource and economic benefits of such a park and which touches on potential funding mechanisms that could bring it to life, and details on recreational possibilities and wildlife resources.
There's also a 23-page Maine Woods brochure that provides further details on the proposal that you can download in PDF form, and a petition you can sign in support of the potential park.
Comments
I believe you are right, Mr. Saunders. At least about the 50% that pay 100% of the taxes. Should be a goal for the other half to get themselves in a position where they can have some skin in the game. Might be a lot learned in the struggle:).
Dear Reality Experimentor,
Your points are taken. My main purpose was not to argue about what to do about the deficit, but to make the point that the cost of existing and potential new national parks is minuscule compared with the whole federal budget. It makes no sense to argue that we can't afford parks when we are spending infinitely more money on unnecessary things such as corporate subsidies, Cold War weapons systems, etc.
Regarding your opposition to promoting the "greater good while destroying individuals," I totally agree. That is not at all what we are talking about in the Maine Woods, despite unfounded claims to the contrary.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear y_p_w,
I would certainly not claim that the National Park Service has never made mistakes in using its eminent domain powers. They clearly have. My point is that most of those mistakes happened decades ago. The National Park Service has only used eminent domain in a few isolated situations in recent years. I might even agree that some were ill-advised if I knew the whole story. But that is a far cry from what some claim, which is that the National Park Service continues a large-scale assault on private property owners through the coercive use of eminent domain. If there is any objective evidence that this is the case, I have yet to see it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Ron,
Sorry, but you're wrong.
(A) Only a small fraction of America's national parks were created through acquisition by he Federal Government (aka the American people).
(B) The only Special Interest Groups that I know that are taking control of the Federal Government is wealthy corporate interests that are buying elections and donating huge amounts of money to elected officials. The only Special Interest Groups that are taking control of federal property are private industries that push out other users to log, graze, mine, drill, and otherwise exploit our natural resources while being subsidized by the American taxpayer.
(c) The People are losing control of federal property, because of the private corporate uses noted above. They are also losing control of their own private property in more and more cases, but it is very rarely because of acquisition by the Federal Government to create a national park. Much more common is that people are losing control of their property to greedy corporate interests, such as those with subsurface mineral rights that allow mountaintop removal mining, oil and gas drilling including fracking, and other extractive activities; by industries that pollute the air and water; by adjacent construction of power lines and other infrastructure; and by illegal off-road motor vehicle use and other such activities.
If you are implying that the acquisition of private land by the Federal government leads to control of the land by conservationists, please show us any evidence that this is the case. I have certainly never seen any.
Mr. Kellett,Just wondering if you might be stuck in the 60's (fun at the time) mentality. It could be referred to as arrested development in some circles but I know it's more difficult to grow when a career is so profitable with such a great straw man as the environment. Brings to mind an old Churchill quote about the transition between youthful liberalism growing into smart conservatism as one ages. Both natural life progressions. Tired and old clichés about business taking over are again conjuring up Castro's Cuba especially with the inconvenient truths of this administration's relationship with big business and unions laundering the public's taxes into campaign contributions for almost exclusively one party.
I'll give another site referencing a favorite of many from the 60's including me but I like him even more now, lol!Respectfullyhttp://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assi...
Response to "Sorry but you are wrong"
Ironically, I agree with most of what you say. However sometimes it is what is left out that is just as important.
As to "conservationists", I consider myself one, as are most responsible people. I pointed my remarks at Special Interest Groups who under the guise of Environmentalists are attempting to take control of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. They are craftilly doing this via the endangered species act. Here again, I am in agreement with the act as long as it is not used in a manipulative manner. If someone wants to control something today, we have created multiple ways for them to do it. Unfortunitely many laws that were inacted with honorable intentions are used to extremes for less than honorable intentions.
Now, the reason I brought this up in this article is that it may help to explain why so many people are unwilling to trust handing over control of property to the Federal Government, which places it in the hands of the Department of Interior, Which places it into the hands of the National Park System, who ends up being sued by Suppossed Environmental Groups because they are not running things the way these groups think they should.
Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming the Federal Government or the Department of Interior. I believe their intentions at least start out with the most honorable of intentions that are born out by the initial conversations and negotiations. But once it gets past down to the NPS,for what ever reason, On Occassion, things begin to change. Initial conversations and negotiated promises are lost or forgotten. New laws are passed with gray and contradicting content. Some Environmental Groups that don't give a dang about the past and believe that only they know how the park should be run, then make their move. They do it very skillfully, a nip at the time. They start out with just the things that we all would agree are a good thing. But they have an agenda that goes well past that. If they get their way at Cape Hatteras, everyone will see that this is true. If they don't get their way, then common sense will have prevailed.
The unfortunate thing is that alot of good people are being used by a few organizations in the name of save the environment. Heck, we all want to save the environment. But there are some that also want to control it to the extreme, including exclusion of others. That is why some people are expressing reluctance as to trusting the National Park Philosophy.
I know there are many that will take issue with what I have said. That's fine, I respect your opinions. There are similar issues in progress all across the Country. Too much arguing and definately too much litigation. I think we must ask the question , Why ? I think one answer is some want a little too much to be their way and disregard the feelings of others.
The motto of the free and open access folks at Cape Hatteras is "Protect and Preserve, Not Prohibit". I think that says it pretty good. Because of the misdeeds of a few, some think it necessary to exclude all. I think some moderate regulation will work.
Please believe that I know most Environmentalists are good, well meaning folks. I have used the term herein to associate certain special interest groups. Hope everyone understands. I further wish to point out that it's difficult to determine the motivations and what forces are behind some actions of the NPS. Hoping for the best where that's concerned.
Ron (obxguys)
Ron Saunders,Spot on and respectfully said! Not always an easy deal:).
Dear Reality Experimentor,
It's quite unseemly of you to accuse me of having a
"profitable" career using the environment as a "straw man."
My wife, who makes twice what I make, would laugh at the idea my work for a
small nonprofit group is "profitable." And calling the environment a
"straw man" -- now who is spouting "tired and old cliches"?
You sound like James Watt -- maybe that means you're stuck in the '80s. Or
maybe it's the '60s, with your wacky allusion to "Castro's
Cuba." Talk about arrested development....
Regarding big corporations taking over, that is not an old
cliche -- it's a new reality. If you don't think that corporate interests have
an unprecedented amount of control over American life, it's another sign that
you might be lagging back in the '60s.
I am not happy that Obama gets funding from corporate
interests, but he doesn't have much choice if he is to stand a chance against
the massive corporate contributions flowing to the Republicans. Maybe you
missed the Citizens United case and the scandalous donations to the
Republicans from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Koch Brothers that
helped to buy a number of Republican elections in 2010.
I am happy to have unions supporting Obama -- they are the
only major counterforce left to balance selfish corporate and Wall Street
interests. That is why right-wing Republican governors are doing their best to bust unions -- it
has nothing to do with state budgets. Amazingly, they have overreached so far
that the people are fighting back.
Being unhappy about America being taken over by giant
corporations, Wall Street bankers, and the greedy rich is not a '60s thing --
it was championed by "tired and old" presidents such as Teddy
Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. We need their kind of
leadership now, more than ever.
Best,
Michael
Dear Ron,
You make a lot of good points. My own feeling is that we can’t
go too wrong if we always have a sense of balance. I am an off-road motorized vehicle
user, but I recognize that it is only fair to have places where responsible
people can use them. In return, I think ORV and snowmobile users should be
willing to support other areas that will be managed as wilderness.
The RESTORE: The North Woods proposal for a Maine Woods
National Park and Preserve would address both kinds of uses. The core would be national
park managed as wilderness, and other more accessible areas would be a national
preserve, where hunting, snowmobiling, and other uses not usually allowed in
national parks could continue.
I also agree that some environmental organizations -- especially some big national organizations -- can
be pretty arrogant. I have to deal with that myself, as a person who works for
a small nonprofit group.
I think the National Park Service is doing its best to
balance the many sometimes contradictory interests of the American people. They
usually do a pretty good job. As long as everyone has a voice and the process
is transparent, I think we can eventually sort out the tough issues.
Best,
Michael
Mr. KellettSo much imagery is also a large part of debate. It always has been but the amount of reality or truth as a base of the issues sure has to be at an all time low, I believe. The use of the "environment" as a straw man is not arguable. It's right up there with the way some people throw the "racist" term around so loosely that it's meaningless except to slander and neutralize the opposition. There ARE people out there that see through a lot of these debate tactics and those numbers are increasing as the attempts to ignore reality can not be soothed by ever more meaningless words. Short on time here but thanks for the discussion.