Maine Woods National Park

Do you not "get it" that Quimby could be chunking up this land for multi-millionaire condo-retreat development ?

apondsong, you're the one who doesn't "get it". It's apparent from this comment that you've never been in the area she's promoting for a park. Other than one or two views of Katahdin, there is nothing to see unless you're on a river, where no deveopment can occur within 200 feet and no clearing of trees to any extent would be allowed. This is not an area where anyone would want a "condo-retreat" because it all even growth forest, no spectaular views and lots of flies in the summer. As someone said yesterday, there is no "Wow" factor in this area, unlike Baxter State Park. If Quimby has such a benevolent feeling for the people and economy of the area she would donate part of this land to add to Baxter Park and leave the rest open of the activities that have gone on there for the past 400 years. But, no, she's on an ego trip with her eye on her "legacy" - a park in her name, under federal control that will be closed to all but the most primitive camping. NPS policy dictates that there is no motorized access in national parks, no hunting, and little logging.

Apondsong said I, am personally benefiting from Arcadia National Park!

Apondsong said, Arcadia has miles and miles galore of roads and trails.

Apondsong said, I'm not sure what the volunteer vs. employee ratio is at Arcadia.

Apondsong said, I, myself, am benefiting from Arcadia's allure to the tourists and natives, alike.

Since youre so enamored of government control in southern Maines federal land taking I sure do hope that you learn to spell it some time soon.

ARCADIA is the name of places in 16 states. Maine is not one of them.

ACADIA is named for the French colonial empire of New France.

Even if you didnt know the name of one of the prized statist takings in the country Id think you would understand colonial empire holdings.

thank you ODF... I was going to ask Aponsong where the hell Arcadia is. Hunting and snowmobiling bring toursim dollars to this state.

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

"ARCADIA is the name of places in 16 states. Maine is not one of them."

I wasn't going to say anything.

I thought it was a telling mistake.

MPBN's reporter tells his audience Maine's Legislature is "skeptical" of a North Woods Park. Did the Maine Legislature just come out with a unanimous resolution giving an unqualified no to a Maine North Woods Park?

Audio Report: Salazar Gets Earful on Proposed Maine National Park
08/19/2011 Reported By: Jay Field

Bob Goldman;

http://maine.earth-first.net/2011/01/getting-it-right-for-wolves-for-the...

I recognized that voice from the Medway meeting when he arose from the seat next to Cynthia Dill;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWYgHc7s9w

http://www.mainegop.com/2011/04/dem-rep-cynthia-dill-dishonors-powmia-me...

Is there any doubt about the earthfirst/Maine agenda???

The people of Cape Elizabeth should be ashamed.

You are subscribed to Maine.gov Press Releases for Maine.gov. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Maine's Spruce/Fir Forest Harvest Predicted to Surge over the Next 20 Years
08/19/2011 02:13 PM EDT

AUGUSTA, Maine - The Governor's Office has released a new report completed by an Old Town natural-resource consulting firm for the Maine Department of Conservation (MDOC) predicting that harvest levels of the state's spruce-fir fiber resource can be increased significantly over the next 20 years while inventory levels are maintained.

The report on current inventory and projected growth, prepared by James W. Sewall Co. of Old Town, examines Maine's private, state and commercial timberlands, excluding federal lands, amounting to slightly more than 17 million acres.

The Sewall analysis predicts "an opportunity over the next twenty years to significantly increase the harvest levels of spruce/fir while still maintaining current levels of total spruce/fir standing inventory."

As a result, state officials are confident that Maine's forest products industry can play a significant role in a resurging national economy, plus in creating new jobs throughout Maine's woodlands region.

"We can increase our annual harvest of spruce/fir by 64 percent while maintaining our standing inventory over the next 20 years," Governor Paul LePage said. "That sends a powerful signal to our forest industry that Maine is the place to invest. This translates directly into jobs."

"For every new job we create at a sawmill, we have the potential to add three to four new jobs upstream into the forest and downstream into value-added products," Governor LePage pointed out. "That's what increases in fiber supply can do for Maine."

"There have been 30 years of regeneration since the 1980s," MDOC Commissioner Bill Beardsley said. "The resulting forest is now moving into commercial size, and its annual growth rate is accelerating. These vast forests will mature and be ready for harvest on a sustainable basis over the next 20 years. This doesn't even include improvements in future silvicultural practices."

Doug Denico, Maine state forester under MDOC, commented: "Maine's spruce/fir forest is entering a phase when growth rates per acre will increase each year through 2030. A growing, stable supply of spruce/fir bodes well for investment and jobs in our forest industry. Sewall independently confirmed our state analysis. Add to this our industry's ever-improving silviculture practices and harvest utilization, and I am very optimistic for Maine's rural communities."

Denico also said that "the MDOC looks forward to partnering with various groups to fund and advance this project to include all commercial tree species. The Sewall study is timely, as existing and potential investors in new forest products businesses have shown increased interest in the future wood supply of various species."

Sewall was contracted to perform an independent assessment of the state's spruce/fir resource. The report concluded that there currently is about 150 million tons of fiber in the state inventory, based on the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis dataset as of 2010. Inventory growth is estimated at 4.7 million tons a year.

As might be expected, Aroostook County has the largest current inventory of fiber, at 1.5 million cubic feet, and the most timberland, at 3.78 million acres. Piscataquis County is next, with 1 million cubic feet in inventory and 2.25 million acres. Androscoggin County has the smallest inventory, at 10,013 cubic feet, while Sagadahoc County has the smallest area of timberland, at 105,949 acres.

The latest inventory data also shows that over the past 10 years, spruce/fir growth was approximately 98 percent of what was harvested. The harvest, however, also has declined over the past 10 years by about 25 percent. With decreased harvesting pressure in recent years, the ratio of growth to harvest now appears positive, according to the report.

Projecting for the next 20 years, Sewall biometricians judged that the harvest can be increased in one year to 4.8 million tons with no effect on inventory. They also stated that harvest actually could be increased to 7.8 million tons annually by the end of the 20-year period while still maintaining inventory at current levels, a 64 percent increase over current levels. At that rate, the average harvest would be 5.86 million tons annually.

The report states that there may be two economic opportunities for Maine producers: one opportunity simply by increasing annual harvest levels; and a second opportunity in harvesting trees planted after the spruce budworm epidemic in the 1970s that have reached maturity.

Adding a note of caution, the report states: "� [T]here is always the chance of another spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) infestation or widespread loss to wildfire." The risk, however, "is not the same level of concern it has been in the past."

The report notes that the Maine Forest Service continues to survey and monitor spruce budworm. "� [I]t is probable that the budworm will return in numbers large enough to significantly impact the spruce/fir resource," the report states. " � Damage [however] can be minimized by keeping the forest healthy and not letting it become over mature."

Another potential loss could be from forest fire, the Sewall analysts said, adding, however, that "Maine has done a great job of prevention and suppression of forest fires." The report notes a dramatic decrease in the number of acres consumed by forest fires in recent years.

"Both of these risks are partially mitigated by the extensive road system now in place, and by the condition of the forest (younger, more vigorous and more stratified in terms of age class, stand size class and stocking)," the Sewall report concluded.

For the complete Sewall report, go to: http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/pdf/spruce_fir_resource_rpt.pdf

For more information about the Maine Forest Service, go to: http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs
###

ODF: Sorry. aCadia...better?

Now that you've stroked your ego by denigrating my spelling, you might like to explain to me why Northern Maine isn't doing just spiffy-fine, seeing as how the logging companies have held sway there for decades galore, and you're still crying in your soup about NO JOBS BAD ROADS NO DEER FEWER HUNTERS blah blah blah.

Oh, btw....did you mean I'd. Id isn't a word.

Frankly, I've always put an "R" in Acadia and I appreciate the correction ! It's your needless arrogance and attempt to demean that rubs me the wrong way.

Do you always feel the need to do that when somebody doesn't agree with you?

No one stroked his "ego" over a 'spelling' mistake. Most people simply ignored it, while recognizing the implications. Finally someone pointed out that you were repeatedly using the wrong name for an area you claim to be so knowledgeable about in your advocacy of Federal control. Now you resort to accusing ODF of "needless arrogance". We aren't buying the alleged expertise.

How arrogant can the progressive viros get? The Kennebec Journal now editorializes that opponents of a Federal takeover don't know why and that we all need the Federal government to tell us all what to think in a government "study" on behalf of itself. It concludes that Salazar should "order" a study despite the opposition in Maine. They don't seem to even know that he has no authority to do that. Apparently they have become too accustomed to Obama where limits on government action and independent thought and knowledge aren't supposed to matter.

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/park-study-would-give-us-facts-to-argue-...

ewv: What makes you think I claim to be "so knowledgable" .....and you'd do well to speak for yourself.

I said I benefit financially from the thousands of tourists Acadia draws to Bar Harbor and the surrounding area every summer. And I live a good distance away as well !

As for ODF...my statement stands. Think what you will.

So, maybe you can tell me how the logging industry will magically do what it has failed to do for decades; make Northern Maine economically prosperous. Between the logging industry and the hunting camps...what's the problem?

It's a STUDY proposal...what are you so afraid of ? That maybe somebody will find something there worth perserving afterall ? If not.....let um do the study and put an end to it !

What would be so awful about splitting the area between Park & Perserve status?

HUH?

Are you aware of the Restore;the north woods 3.2 million acre park proposal?

Are you aware that not at anytime has she said that this park was going to be limited to only 70,000 acres.

Are you aware that among her voiciferous supporters was Bob Goldman, a left wing radical environmentalist representing Earth First!, the enviroterrorist organization that used violent tactics to try to stop logging in the northwest by spiking trees and burning and wrecking working people's equipment?

These people have infiltrated the very core of the Maine bureaucracy with the Dems casting a blind eye while they waged a jihad-like economic war for the past twenty years against the good people of the Katahdin region as well as the entire area of northern Maine.

Apondsong said, "It's a STUDY proposal...what are you so afraid of ?"

Your first mistake is the naive belief that the "study" is about a yes or no answer. If youd look into the facts of how the federal bureaucrats look at the world youd see that its more about a "how can it be done" answer.

Apondsong said, "That maybe somebody will find something there worth perserving afterall ?"

When I hear this sort of utterance I know that the utterer has at a minimum swallowed the statist line of BS, and at worst become one.

Do you honestly believe that the federal government is the expert on "preserving" stuff? Or the state government for that matter?

Do you believe that the State of Maine has local control as one of its foundations for any reason at all?

= = =

As for your silliness of blaming me for pointing out that you were entirely unable to spell or say the name of the federal government holding you claim expertise about?

If I kept writing about my knowledge about the "United Starts of Americka," would you believe me to be an expert?

Sorry to have ruint your perfect "Emperors New Clothes" moment, but gee dude, youre attacking me because your actions caused you embarrassment?

ODF: In response to the FIRST HALF of your RANT:

The state government has failed to remedy the failing Northern Maine economy. So have you.
I do not take pleasure in sarcasim or personally demeaning others and for that I am thankfull. It has not always been thus here on AMG on my behalf.
However, allow me to enlighten you: There are three kinds of fools...fools, damn fools, & gawd dam fools.
When ODF implies that the federal government, in establishing the National Parks of Americka ( to date ) have not done a huge service in perserving (gasp !) some of the most glorious and spectacular places (and animals) on the face of the earth for ALL to enjoy...she has definately proven herself to be one of the latter.

SECOND HALF OF RANT:

Your reading skills lack comprehension me-lady. I appreciated the spelling correction and said so. But, show me proof of this so called claim of expertise I made or look foolish.
This section of your rant perfectly exhibits your skills of projection, well know to a certain group of "in denial" individuals.
Attack you? For correcting your grammatical incompetence? Temper...temper.....................(dude).

Ugenetoo: Bob Goldman pops up, uninvited, when any cause is up for debate that has to do with nature or the environment. Nobody has control over that. I agree with some things he supports and I heartily disagree with others. Unless you have proof, he may or may not be personally working with Quimby. And because he supports something doesn't make it good or bad as far as I go. I make up my own mind.

I am 100% against violent means of protesting...whatever the cause. Hurting people is totally unacceptable. I agree with some parts of SAMS agenda...I agree with some parts of WAMS agenda....I do not fully agree with either of their agendas.

Words like "wage jihad-like economic war" make me question your own sense of rationality. I don't say that to be offensive. But radicals come in all stripes. Radicals vs. Radicals I'm not radically FOR or AGAINST this happening. But I DO know that development happens in the blink of an eye...that Northern Maine is a hurting unit...and we have an offer on the table. I see that a Park would be offensive to many, if not most...so my thinking is; why not a compromise part PARK/part PERSERVE. At least ...why not discuss it. ??

"I see that a Park would be offensive to many, if not most"

If stealing part of the state would be offensive to MOST, in a democratic republic, shouldn't that be the end of the issue? APS, I'd support a referendum on the general issue. After the resounding NO, dead issue. No need for a study about how to violate the constitution.

PS: Do you know how much these studies cost? Why not a study to examine the feasibility of producing nuclear fusion from cormorants? The answer is simple. The answer is obvious, and the cost of getting the answer is impossible to justify.

This is doubly true when "studies" exist on close enough topics to shed considerable light on the answer.

We have a Baxter Park study, done a couple years ago. It says just over 6 million generated in the entire state from the park with guaranteed moose that holds Katahdin.

http://www.pressherald.com/special/sugarloaf/on-the-brink-of-change-at-s...

http://www.sugarloaf2020.com/timeline.html

Sugarloaf has, since 2007, invested $11 million in mountain capital improvements alone. If the "Big Pahk" eliminates the potential for a single Sugarloaf, it is a break even. If it eliminates (as it would) a great deal of the $6 million per year bear hunt AND prevents a single Sugarloaf-size resort, it is a disaster. If it does all the above while taking huge chunks of Maine off the tax rolls, it is an obvious, unmitigated disaster.

Now add in the fact that it will take at least some revenue away from Baxter.

We really need a study to tell us that water flows downhill, or that roadless, trackless wilderness inaccessible to almost everyone is an economic disaster, as opposed to almost any ability to "use" the resource.

Why not a study to examine the feasibility of producing nuclear fusion from cormorants? The answer is simple. The answer is obvious, and the cost of getting the answer is impossible to justify.

Even so, the idea of using cormorants as fuel for nuclear fusion is SUCH a great concept that I'd be willing to part with some tax dollars even if there was only a .0001% chance it would work. ;->

(ospreys too, after what they've done to my boat...)

TJC: Please give me data on what you mean by a $6 million per year bear hunt.

My thinking is, a National Park /Perserve becomes a destination point for tourists...more tourists, more money for Baxter and the whole dang area.

Maybe somebody would be willing to do reseach to see if there is any National Park that has damaged their areas economy rather than enhance it..? I looked at the list of National Parks, and I have to say that I am very glad we have every single one of them. I see the development going on around me...and I would hate to think it might happen up north. What we don't see...we don't miss. But the beauty will be there...until somebody decides to either "change it" for their own personal gain, or keep it forever perserved for many to wittness and enjoy.

Are there hunting camps on the Quimby land right now ?? How could there be..she'd own them...no?

APS doesn't want development but how many strip malls, t-shirt shops etc will spring up if Quimby gets her way, just like her beloved Acadia?

apondsong Sun, 08/21/2011 #132: "What would be so awful about splitting the area between Park & Perserve status?"

What is wrong with that is that they are both National Parks run by the National Park Service. The National Park Service has dozens of names it uses as different categories -- National Parks, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Trails, National Recreation Areas, National Preserves, National Historic Parks, National Wild and Scenic Rivers and on an on.

The technical differences do not prevent the National Park Service from managing them in the same top-down way with the same lack of local accountability and with no regard for the rights of the people they push around. The National Park Service assumes that it should exercise power to the maximum amount it can interpret from Congressional authorization. The National Park Service rationalizes its actions in terms of what it deems to be the "nationally significant" as its bureaucratic "mission". Local people don't count.

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship and no reason to submit oneself to these statist "For the Good of All" schemes -- no matter what utopias are imagined in the heads of the big government "liberal" activists who in their hopey changey statism are always willing to believe "if we only had more power ..." - and then try to put it over by changing the names or the color of the uniforms.

Strip malls? None. I'm thinking it would be more like a street and maybe a side-street or two. Looking at resturants, maybe a diner, some motels, plenty of campgrounds, gift shops, Sporting Goods Store, Maine crafters shops, a few art galleries, hokie trinket shops for the T-shirt, cap and key-chain folks...... Lots of potential with a little imigination. But I don't see TJ-MAX, Staples, or Wal-Mart fitting into the picture. Get real...Acadia doesn't sport a strip mall ! Nor does Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor, Southwest Harbor,...etc. etc. etc.

There has to be a compromise on Quimby's behalf. Snowmobiles should definately have a place in a Northern Maine Park/Perserve ! That's part of the Maine winters "up North"....snowmobiling ! It would HAVE to be a part of the experience...right along with snowshoeing, x-country skiing, skating, sledding......all that jazz !

BTW Islander....you have a problem with tourist town businesses ??? No way.

APS:

First, the direct impact on the DIFW (2002 figures):

http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/bear/bear_faqs.pdf

Permit
Type of Permit # Sold Cost Total Cost
NR Bear Permit 7,372 $65 $ 479,180
NR Hunting License 7,372 $85 $ 626,620
Resident Bear Permit 7,855 $25 $ 196,375
Resident Hunting License 7,855 $19 $ 149,245
Total Financial Impact to the Department $1,451,420

"Using the percentage of nonresident hunters that use a guide as a basis, and multiplying by an average price of $1,100 for a guided hunt, the direct fiscal impact to the guiding industry in 2002 was $5,027,704"

"This figure does not include any measure of other impacts such as retail sales or taxidermy."

DIrect positive financial impact = $ 6,479,124 2002 dollars.

Of course, the impact on hunting generally would be much larger.

http://www.maineaudubon.org/resource/r_watching_out_for_Maine's_wildlife.pdf Per audobon: "In 1996, fishing, hunting, and
wildlife watching produced $1.1 billion in economic output, supported 17,680 jobs and generated $67.7 million in state tax revenues." Many of the hunting jobs and a good deal of the revenue would be lost from a "Big Pahk" -- the bigger the "Pahk", the bigger the loss.

Maine has comparatively little federal land, hence relatively small federal land hunting revenue.
http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/usfs_rec_economic_impacts.pdf

I don't make this stuff up, though some might differ on the significance of the numbers. To me they say: BIG $$ from paper. Also BIG $$ from hunting. Neither would be permitted in a national park. Both are heavily weighted to northern Maine, in the area of the Quimby land. Bear hunting is even more so, and generates a solid six mil per year.

Baxter generates a less solid 3.8 million direct, with the remainder being "additional $3.1 million in indirect spending by local businesses and households."

Bear hunt revenue numbers are ALL direct.

If you can get a copy, you might want to look up:

Teisl, M. F. and K. J. Boyle. 1998. The economic impacts of hunting, inland fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation in Maine. Resource Economics and Policy Staff Paper No. 479. Department of Resource Economics & Policy, Maine Agriculture and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, ME. 26 pp.

That's the source of the 1.1 billion number.

Conclusion (that I've reached, anyway). the Baxter study would depict what a VERY successful park would do in the North. Since it would lack "Wow", it would likely do less, and steal from Baxter as a consequence. Remember, it is NPS policy to "preserve" wild land by limiting access. Fees would be higher, amenities more limited and uses fewer. Costs for management of roads and forests now born by paper companies and timber landowners would be born by taxpayers.

apondsong Mon, 08/22/2011 #139: "My thinking is, a National Park /Perserve becomes a destination point for tourists...more tourists, more money for Baxter and the whole dang area."

This "thinking" is pure imagination. It is tooth fairy economics. You have no idea of what it takes for a productive economy to work, you only imagine something happening. One doesn't just call something a "destination point" and conclude that tourists will "bring money" like money falling from the sky. Federal control under the National Park Service is not economic magic. There are reasons why tourists don't go to Baxter more than they do. The National Park Service does not create the scenery it controls and does not create what isn't there. Hopey changey Federal control doesn't change that with "if only we had wider powers ..."

Maybe somebody would be willing to do reseach to see if there is any National Park that has damaged their areas economy rather than enhance it..?

How about proving that the National Park Service through its Federal control "improves" an economy in comparison with what it and other government restrictions displaces instead of trying to put the burden of proof on others?

How about bothering to look at the people's homes, land and businesses that were forcibly removed, what people have to go through under National Park Service abuse, and the adverse impacts outside the boundaries by Federal intervention? This already has been "researched" and is being ignored by the pie in the sky hopey changey imagination that assumes whatever good exists was provided by the Federal government and never mind the destruction.

But the whole notion assuming as the criterion only "improving the economy" is wrong and corrupt in principle. This is supposed to be a free society in which the rights of individuals are protected. One does not justify government action by collective utilitarianism assuming the statist sacrifice of people "For the Good of All".

The mentality of "improving the economy" by the National Park Service coming in with its Federal restrictions is identical in principle to the infamous authoritarian Kelo eminent domain mentality rationalizing government force to take some people's property so that someone else can use it for his own purposes claimed to be "better" development and paying more taxes.

The whole scam is inherently statist and collectivist. It is moral cannibalism. Statist economic control not only doesn't "work", it is unethical. We already know that economic freedom has led to much higher standards of living, but the left is always ready to imagine otherwise with "if only we had wider powers ..." based on its false morality of human sacrifice as an ideal.

I looked at the list of National Parks, and I have to say that I am very glad we have every single one of them.

Have you ever bothered to include the destruction that the National Park Service caused to real people in its way? Your emotional attachment to scenery and to imagined scenery that you will never see is not a justification for the long record of abuse by the National Park Service. Your reading a list and being "very glad" is not a justification for anything, including your ends-justifies-the-means mentality. Normal people can enjoy scenery without going berserk pushing people around with Federal control.

I see the development going on around me...and I would hate to think it might happen up north. What we don't see...we don't miss. But the beauty will be there...until somebody decides to either "change it" for their own personal gain, or keep it forever perserved for many to wittness and enjoy.

Who is "we"? Who are you to tell other people that they can't build on an enjoy their own property? Who are you to tell me that "we" wouldn't "miss" my home because you resent my "changing" my own property for "personal gain" "up north"? Who the hell do you think you are?

This arrogant feudalist mentality of using the raw power of the National Park Service for land use control to keep "other people out" in the name of "we" is quite prevalent in the park lobby.

Islander Mon, 08/22/2011 #140: "APS doesn't want development but how many strip malls, t-shirt shops etc will spring up if Quimby gets her way, just like her beloved Acadia?"

There are several strip malls at the "gateway" to Mt. Desert. They are convenient despite the loathing of the preservationists. The stalled traffic for hours at a time in the summer is much worse. How much does that accumulated loss of time for thousands of people every day take out of the "economy" at Mt. Desert? But don't expect such crowds at the Quimby wilderness.

apondsong suggests:

"let um do the study and put an end to it !"

As she says on a regular basis, "I don't see - - -" when she flies off on a tangent. What she doesn't see is that there is no end to it. A few years ago, Maine was 95% privately owned. It drives the environmental industry crazy. They think only they know how things should be. Landowners should have no rights. This effort by the environmental industry goes back to the first half of the 20th century. It is nothing new.

Acadia National Park, White Mountain National Forest, Greater Baxter, Northern Forest Lands Study, Heritage Rivers. LURC, Allagash Wilderness Waterway right through a working forest, West Branch Corridor, Greater Saint John, Down East Lakes, Western Mountains, Boundary Lakes, Saco River Corridor and their effort to make the Gulf of Maine a "Non-extractive Marine Reserve"; All of these began as studies. We value our property and our privacy. We don't need to be studied.

Several years ago I reported a comment made by a landowner. His land is posted. He said if some of those vernal pool lovers come onto his land looking for a wet skidder rut, when they come back out to the road they will find their Volvo upside down in the road and on fire! He said, "Study us at your own risk."

To put it in terms apondsong might understand, these people are like coyotes. They were introduced illegally, prey on our way of life, hurt our economy in Northern Maine and we need to reduce their impact.

...these people are like coyotes. They were introduced illegally, prey on our way of life, hurt our economy in Northern Maine and we need to reduce their impact.

So true,Roger. I like your analysis And indeed they are almost all "from away". Now Mr. Brackett from Patten who commented in the meeting with Salazar in Millinocket last Thursday talked about our longtime access to places we've enjoyed for many years and he told it like it is. That all will change with the NPS in here. People need to read and understand what is at stake. It's our very way of life and for many our livlihood we're talking about here.

thejohnchapman Mon, 08/22/2011 #137: "

In this country the viros' campaign to nationalize private property and impose Federal control should have been dead before it started. Why give them a "referendum"?

This audacious takeover scheme hatched in Washington, DC in collaboration with national pressure groups and arrogant big shots in Maine has been rejected repeatedly for decades since they first promoted it. There have already been politically self-serving government-sponsored "studies" designed for a pre-conceived outcome to promote an agenda and they have torn up the state apart and wrecked peoples live for years at a time.

The victims of these campaigns always have their backs to the wall, battling sophisticated, paid, full-time, political operatives in pressure groups backed with millions of dollars, insider connections and professional media manipulation intended to steamroll the local people.

It never stops. The Federal park takeover campaign has been push-polling and propagandizing for decades, misleading people not affected (and some who are) into thinking of a National Park takeover in terms of imagery of a permanent, year-round scenic vacation in which money falls from the sky over a Garden of Eden utopia and playground. That is not what it is.

The viros want the land for wilderness -- not an "improved economy", not "democracy" -- they want land that belongs to someone else and they want Federal control.

When people realize what Federal control really means to those controlled they reject it. But if a "majority" voted for it knowing what it was it still wouldn't be justified because it destroys people's rights and freedom.

How are the victims supposed to counter, over and over, yet another misleading media campaign backed with millions of dollars of outside money? No, they should not be given a "referendum" cynically trying once again to overwhelm people after decades of failure of an outrageous agenda.

Nor would another defeat stop them. They always come back for more no matter what they get or don't get. They deliberately wear people down, looking for a moment of weakness. The pressure groups know that they only have to win once and there is no going back. Once Federal control is imposed you don't get rid of it.

These Federal park takeover campaigns have been repeated all across the country. There is nothing new about any of it. They are always nasty and cynical power plays, strategically carried out over years for a long term agenda. They should not be condoned in any way or given anything pretending that there is anything legitimate about what they are up to.

thejohnchapman Mon, 08/22/2011 #137: "Sugarloaf has, since 2007, invested $11 million in mountain capital improvements alone. If the "Big Pahk" eliminates the potential for a single Sugarloaf, it is a break even. If it eliminates (as it would) a great deal of the $6 million per year bear hunt AND prevents a single Sugarloaf-size resort, it is a disaster. If it does all the above while taking huge chunks of Maine off the tax rolls, it is an obvious, unmitigated disaster."

This isn't just hypothetical. One of the many horrid experiences with the National Park Service in Maine, let alone the rest of the country, has been its attack, in collaboration with a pressure campaign by it lobby groups, to destroy the Saddleback Ski Area, tying it up for decades under threats of condemnation for unauthorized acquisitions.

The preservationists don't want to have to "see" the ski trails from the Appalachian Trail, which is controlled by the National Park Service. They want the whole Mountain and decided to make it part of the "trail". It took the intervention of several US Senators and an act Congress to finally "agree" on acquiring a portion of the mountain, leaving the Ski Area otherwise alone for the time being.

They don't want an economy, they don't want industry, and they don't want recreation. Their idea of "tourism" is wilderness hikers with a minimal "footprint".

In the anti-Saddleback campaign there was lot of the usual poetic imagery and hysteria over "preserving" the mountain to "save" it, while suppressing what they were doing to the owners. Now that they are claiming that their wilderness park plan is "for the economy", they are laying low on the normal preservationist wilderness rhetoric that we have heard for decades accompanied by strident attacks on "development" and demonizing and harassing logging -- pretending that it never happened and ignoring that the purpose of the whole campaign has been to expunge industry and grab the land on a massive scale.

We're even repeatedly told to forget that the agenda is to take control of millions of acres, of which the Quimby land is a part -- while they simultaneously want a National Park Service politicized "study" to be open to promoting the rest.

And isn't it amazing how the latest deceptive campaign claiming to be for "the economy" has followed right on the heels of viro hysteria over losing LURC control to suppress economic improvement and keep the UT in perpetual "darkness".

The media plays right along with the scripts to help the campaign, and the public is jerked all over the place in accordance with what it is manipulated to believe or forget at any point in time in accordance with what is required for viro political goals.

The campaign against Saddleback and the blackout in the media of what the National Park Service and its pressure group activists did there is so typical. They always want more, and they know how to harass, threaten and intimidate to get it, causing nasty battles that most people never realize -- and then smear you as "paranoid" if you mention it while they pretend to be for "the economy".

The media reports on the viros and the National Park Service is largely PR controlled by activists who decide what campaign they want to favorably appear in public when they want it. Once they become entrenched in an area the problems of Federal control, the phony media promotions and the cover-ups are there forever.

apondsong Sun, 08/21/2011 #131: "It's a STUDY proposal...what are you so afraid of ? That maybe somebody will find something there worth perserving afterall ? If not.....let um do the study and put an end to it !"

Roger Ek Mon, 08/22/2011 #146: "apondsong suggests: 'let um do the study and put an end to it !': As she says on a regular basis, "I don't see - - -" when she flies off on a tangent. What she doesn't see is that there is no end to it."

There is no end to it because they keep coming back for "study" after "study" for decades until they get what they want, and when they get that there is no end to it either.

But not only is there no end to it, the whole notion of a National Park Service "study" is phony. The National Park Service and its lobbyists already know what they want. The land was targeted in a plan devised in Washington, DC in the 1980s. Everyone of these so-called "studies" are political devices intended to build momentum for a preconceived agenda, moving the political process along until they get what they want.

What they don't get the first time, they keep coming back for in yet another "study" in yet another promotion, pretending that 'this time it's different', knowing that they only have to win once, and expecting that sooner or later it will be pushed up to the next level of politics in Washington further and further out of the control of the victims.

It's like being able to repeatedly and without limit try someone for a crime he's been accused of but did not commit, over and over until you finally find a jury that will convict him on some gimmick, with no way to ever go back -- you keep the victim perpetually on the ropes and up against the wall until finding a way to knock him off. Except that this is worse because the "trial" is completely phony and designed in advance to minimize the victim's chances.

How many of these politically self-serving "studies" do we have to go through before people see through the ploy? There is nothing legitimate or honest about this process at all. It is hopelessly corrupt and should not be granted the slightest respect.

I remember a revealing but not surprising incident at one of the meetings during the process of the Northern Forests Lands Council -- which was intended by the viros to promote the agenda following the US Forest Service's Northern Forest Lands Council "study": Michael Kellet said to St. Pierre (both of Restore), "we're losing control of the Council". They know very well what this cynical process is intended to accomplish.

The current demand for yet another "study" in the form of a National Park Service "feasibility study", which has been pushed by Restore for many years, is yet another attempt by the viros to control the outcome of a "study" from their cronies inside the agency. A National Park Service New Area "feasibility study" in particular is a planning and promotion exercise by the National Park Service for how it will control the new area, not whether it should -- because they already have decided that it is "nationally significant" and that they want it, and they have already decided that their template approach to top down control is "feasible". It's all a matter of what they can get away with politically.

By law these "feasibility studies" are required to be authorized by Congress and the agenda is supposed to have popular support in advance. That is why the park takeover lobby has been trying to concoct the appearance of popular support despite the controversy and objections. Once they get such a "study" approved, the shear fact of getting it at all is used in a circular argument to claim that it must have popular support and to thereby shut down objections as irrelevant.

The constant mantra we hear of "what are you so afraid of" has been repeated so many times that it is obviously a "talking point" strategy dishonestly devised to be spread by the campaign. It is no more than moral intimidation equivalent to a playground bully taunting and pressuring children into 'agreeing' to do something stupid.