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
Follow the history of the Kolb Bros. and very recent history of the Verkamp family's business at Grand Canyon that go back over 100 years that were more a part of the cultural history of the Canyon as the National Park Service itself. They were both forced out eventually by NPS but the buildings remain by act of Congress defeating NPS plans to completely demolish and remove Kolb Studio. They were financially compensated, not with funds from those individuals that made this happen but from tax money from INDIVIDUALS like the Kolb's and Verkamps the likes of which are continually assaulted by government "for the greater good."Just a couple of examples to give an idea how individual rights are being lost. Castro's Cuba comes to mind. I like Hopeful's attitude and the gift that Anonymous has of exposing the deception by some that should have been curbed by a parents spanking and saved the World a lot of trouble, lol!
In response to Mr. Kellett's denial/deception that we have a problem:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23183a78-a0c6-11e0-b14e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz...
Dear Reality Experimentor,
I never said that we don't have a deficit problem. I said we don't have "an immediate, looming crisis." The article you linked to does not refute my assertion. It points to a long-term problem, which I agree we need to fix.
A big step forward would be to let the Bush tax cuts end and implement the Affordable Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that this alone would pretty much eliminate the deficit.
It's bizarre that you call my comment a "deception." I guess Paul Krugman, the CBO, and a lot of other economists are also guilty of "deception."
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I stand by my previous comments, and those of my RESTORE: The North Woods colleague, Jym St. Pierre. Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to current events, instead of endlessly repeating imagined outrages from 25 years ago. The Cold War is over and the world has moved on.
Today's reality is that northern Maine is facing unprecedented problems -- unstable landownership, overcutting of the forest, misplaced development, mill closures, and loss of jobs and population. Maine people are looking for solutions to these very real challenges. That is why they are taking a fresh look at the national park idea, as a way to provide protection for the forest, guarantee public access, and diversify the economy.
A national park is a positive idea that could yield positive results for the people of Maine. As always, you offer no solutions to the real concerns of Mainers. You offer nothing but negativity, fearmongering, and obstructionism. People are tired of this kind of overheated rhetoric -- they want constructive solutions.
Dear Mr. Kellett,What we have here is probably the classic Liberal/Conservative discussion with some "reality" either embraced or denied. Counter to Krugman (Lets spend more) is Kudlow if you want to check. The thing with Liberalism is that when everyone sees it for what the ultimate results are , people reject it. Ideally, before the gradually heating water kills the frog to coin a parable. Liberals actually NEED conservatism to survive (financially) not unlike marriages that have one partner keeping things on an even keel (if you can keep politics out of it, lol).I know that conservatism did not get us to this point of decline. The paradigm should and is changing because it has to. The way these arguments are framed is ultimately the test for me. For the greater good while destroying individuals does not work for me. These special places that bring us out of ourselves and humble us, making us stronger are far removed from the muck of political speak. There is a lot to be said for transparency! There's a lot of bad stuff that can't exist if it's practiced but then again the frog lives:).Respectfully
I certainly enjoy my NPS area for their extensive recreational opportunities and for preserving our lands for the benefits of future generations. However, I'm not under the impression that to this day there aren't pressures made on private landowners when a new NPS unit is created or an existing one is expanded or changed in some way.
There have been the pressures made on private landowners to build the new Flight 93 Memorial, including the threat of using eminent domain.
The NPS purchased the land of the old Johnson's Oyster Farm back in 1972 at Point Reyes National Seashore. At the time it was an inholding. The purchase was combined with a reservation of use that included a renewal clause at the end of the 40 year term. Then the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976 placed a potential wilderness tag on the waters where they raised oysters, but not the land that was "leased" from the NPS. So forward to 2005 when new ownership of the oyster farm reads the language of the contract and determines that it can be renewed. But of course it's complicated because the rights to raise oysters in the waters are issued by the State of California, but the the permit issued by the state requires that the the Farm must have their current shore operations to be valid. It gets more complicated, but I guess we can check out other articles on this mess.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's not as if the federal government has always made it painless (in recent years) for landowners when it comes to acquiring land for NPS units.
Guess the title of the article was accurate
Do not have time to read all of this . But my guess is that people are waking up and realizing that National Parks now result in:
(A) The Federal Government taking control of properties
(B) Select Special Interest Groups taking control of the Federal Government, thus taking control of the properties
(C) The People losing control of the properties
So if you want to give the properties to the Select Special Interest Groups, this is the way to do it. Tell me I'm wrong. Look who is pushing for government takeover of properties. Look at the control they want over it once they get it. Look at what they do once they control it. It is theirs.
Sorry Kurt, Couldn't help myself,
Ron (obxguys)