You are here

Congressman From Maine Trying To Block President From Designating A North Woods National Monument

Share

A congressman from Maine has introduced legislation aimed at preventing the president of the United States from designating a national monument in the Pine Tree State without approval from the state legislature and governor.

Rep. Bruce Poliquin last week introduced "Preserving States Rights," a two-page measure that succinctly states, "proclamations may be made only for national monuments that have been approved by the State legislature and governor of each state in which the monument would be located."

“Any process to incorporate federal land in Maine must have strong support from the local community,” said Congressman Poliquin in a press release.

The draft legislation is aimed at preventing President Obama from designating a "North Woods National Monument" if Congress won't endorse a national park on the land owned by Burts Bee founder Roxanne Quimby. Just two hours from coastal Acadia National Park, the proposed park abuts Baxter State Park and has spectacular views of Mount Katahdin, the northern terminus of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Ms. Quimby is prepared to donate 75,000 acres along the East Branch of the Penobscot River for the park, and another 75,000 acres for a national recreation area along its west bank. 

Last month U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, along with Rep. Poliquin, sent a letter (attached) to President Obama in which they raised "serious concerns" about the president using his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the land in question a national monument.

"Mainers have a long and proud history of private land ownership, independence, and local control, and do not take lightly any forced action by the federal government to increase its footprint in our state," the letter read.

Ironically, while Rep. Poliquin said he was driven to introduce the legislation because he believed there must be "strong local support" in favor of a national monument or park, a survey of his congressional district's voters showed 67 percent were in favor of a national park as was being proposed.

Comments

Apparently, math was not Rep. Poliquin's best subject.  Either that, or like the rest of the folks who are supposed to represent us in Washington; he does want HE wants or rather what Republicans are noted for - exractive industries which destroy; not preserve as a national park would do.


If 67% of Maine voters in the congressional district support the designation of National Park or National Monument, one would think President Obama could make the designation without interference?  But, Rep. Bruce Poliquin, (R) Maine, obviously feels the need to be true to his own wishes and disregard those of his constituents. States' Rights?  I don't think so!  What about the democratic process that congress swears to uphold? 


Okay, maybe I'm a little slow. But how, exactly, is someone donating thousands of acres to the Feds a "forced action by the federal government to increase its footprint in our state" ?

I'm not sure how anyone in the 'local community' would have any say on how I disposed of my land, particularly in a state with "a long and proud history of private land ownership, independence..."

My feeling is that these particular people really don't care what happens to the land as long as Obama has nothing to do with it.


Les, your post is incoherent.  JP needs to read the article again - and understand we are a representative republic not a democracy.  Dahkota is kinda on course but misses the fact that once the land goes to the fed, the states lose jurisdication and taxation.  Giving the land to the Feds may not be "a forced action" but it does have negative consequences for the state and the states should probably have some say in that.  


I would never donate anything to the NPS.  But there are organizations like land conservancies and state parks to consider. The Great Smoky Mtns National Park was donated to the federal government via donations by private individuals and the growing sentiment is that was a mistake.  Primarily because, when FDR stood at Newfound Gap he proclaimed , "the park is to be free and forever free and not under control of a strange oversees overlord."  He also said, "I hope the use of it will not be confined to people who come hither on Government specified days and on Government directed tours."

Unfortunately, those days arrived less than 80 years from his speech.  The NPS gets away with dictating terms of human usage therein because they have no oversight and the public is drunk with Ken Burns propoganda.  NPS abuses wouldn't occur if parks were in state hands because local politicians would get skewered at the stake for proposing fees and the like.


EC, I don't know, I think Les makes his point. You might not agree with it, but it's coherent. As for whether creating a national park or monument has "negative consequences for the state," that's your opinion. Before it can be stated as fact I think you'd have to look at the tax rolls and unemployment rate in the communities surrounding the proposed park/monument and then project the same for a national park/monument.

Studies touted by the NPS and NPCA claim that for every $1 invested in the parks, the local communities get a $10 return.

Others would say another national park in Maine would be an economic boost. Certainly I'm sure the folks in Bar Harbor would agree that Acadia National Park is a positive for their community. The same can be said for countless gateway communities throughout the country.


Great points, Kurt.  And the same kind of controversies have raged around the creation of virtually every other national park or monument throughout the history of our national park system.  Every time, opposition has erupted from those who thought they might lose money or be unable to exploit the place to enrich themselves in some way.

History is an endless round of the same ol' same ol' and we Americans seem to be awfully slow learners.


Re Les: I don't understand his math reference and I certainly don't understand "he does want HE wants or rather what Republicans are noted for - exractive industries which destroy"  That is far from a coherent phrase to me.

claim that for every $1 invested in the parks

Yes "claim" but the validity of those claims is highly suspect.  Do parks help the local communities?  In many (but not all) cases, yes.  Is it of that magnitude, doubtful.  Is it incremental to the overall economy, even more doubtful.  


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.