Vote NO on Federal Park (fit in, eviction, buy)

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

Why would a National Park "end that." I don't understand. A National Park would enhance access and increase the public's knowledge of the natural resources and beauty of the area. It would open up the area to people who otherwise would never go there. This also would be a big economic boon to the area; all the goods and services needed for increased tourism. What is the problem with this?

No sense in trying to get a straight answer out of those that have a strong dislike (hatred?) for the Federal Government. Our National Park System is one of the few things that they have done well.......for decades. Unfortunately, politics will probably eventually put an end to our National Parks and they will all end up in the hands of corporations. That will make Northern Maine Land Man and his friends happy. He probably works for Canadian corporation Irving.

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

That old "waste, fraud and abuse" argument is really old and tired. Yes, the government wastes money, all governments do, state, local and federal. So what? The National Parks ARE the treasures of this Country. "A good supply of timber and water power" should be from private lands and that argument is not relevant to National Parks which are for recreation and to preserve beauty and natural resources for future generations. And what does "Russia" have to do with this? Geez!!!!!

Just another paper tiger.

[kellysmith]

Originally Posted by IHeartMaine

Aren't there bugs in other National Parks as well???.....LOL.

I used to work in those woods peeling poplar trees with a bark spud...you have no clue what the insect infestation is in those woods in June...Come on up...the weather is fine...

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by kellysmith

I used to work in those woods peeling poplar trees with a bark spud...you have no clue what the insect infestation is in those woods in June...Come on up...the weather is fine...

I would never go there in June.......I would visit August-October.

[kellysmith]

Originally Posted by IHeartMaine

I would never go there in June.......I would visit August-October.

So I guess those of us working in the trinket shop can live on food stamps until you and your buds come for a visit in August-Oct...kind of think you are making my point. You want to make a playground out of our world so you will have a potential playground to use at your whim...but come check it out first...it might not be as special as you think.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

Why would a National Park "end that." I don't understand. A National Park would enhance access and increase the public's knowledge of the natural resources and beauty of the area. It would open up the area to people who otherwise would never go there. This also would be a big economic boon to the area; all the goods and services needed for increased tourism. What is the problem with this?

Because most of that is banned in national parks. It won't enhance access, it will increase regulations and restrictions on access. Permits and passes to access and do anything. Right now most of the northern Maine woods are open to the public for a variety of things. Hunting, snowmobiling, trapping, fishing, and so forth. You can't really improve on the access that already exists.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

That old "waste, fraud and abuse" argument is really old and tired. Yes, the government wastes money, all governments do, state, local and federal. So what? The National Parks ARE the treasures of this Country. "A good supply of timber and water power" should be from private lands and that argument is not relevant to National Parks which are for recreation and to preserve beauty and natural resources for future generations. And what does "Russia" have to do with this? Geez!!!!!

You're mixing up national forests and national parks. The two are not the same at all.

[elston]

Those who argue against the gov. buying land to set it aside to create national parks for the enjoyment of generations of Americans..... are often in favor of the same government taking private land to give to private industry e.g.. the pipeline.

[Gingrich]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Because most of that is banned in national parks. It won't enhance access, it will increase regulations and restrictions on access. Permits and passes to access and do anything. Right now most of the northern Maine woods are open to the public for a variety of things. Hunting, snowmobiling, trapping, fishing, and so forth. You can't really improve on the access that already exists.

The "public" meaning the traveling public, US citizens and foreign visitors do not even know about the area or have the knowledge of what is there. A National Park would open up that area to spread the knowledge of what to see, to do, the animals, plant life, hiking, fishing, etc. That is what I was saying by improving access. A National Park would not encompass ALL of the northern Maine woods, so obviously plenty of land would be left just as it is now to be used as you mention.

[elston]

Access?

How many Americans and world tourists would have ever seen Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and all the other popular parks.....if they hadn't been made National Parks? A fraction of the millions of people who have visited, and learned and stood in awe at the power and majesty of nature. I have always been proud to be American and to have these wonders as my "birthright" when I visit a national Park. I have also always been impressed with the way they are run.....to provide access without depleting or spoiling the natural habitat...the cleanliness of the facilities....the attention to safety.....and conservation. There have been times we got it wrong...like feeding garbage to the bears in Yellowstone....but we learn and correct. From the National Sea Shore National Park....to Alaska.....Hawaii...and all across this land....our National Parks are a source of pride!