Vote NO on Federal Park (Millinocket, China: 2014, house, construction)

[Gingrich]

Originally Posted by 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!

Elston, you got it exactly right here.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

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.

The solitude of those woods is one of the greatest things about it.

[Gingrich]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

The solitude of those woods is one of the greatest things about it.

Solitude could be maintained within a National Park. In fact, a National Park would protect that aspect for generations to come. It is really the only way to guarantee that it will be permanent, forever.

[Maineac]

Well, the discussion devolved in the way I expected. No common sense, just politics and political innuendo. Pretty disgusting. No basis in fact for any of the arguments, pro or con. So this pitched battle will be fought by name calling from both sides of the fence. That's great. The arguments that national forests need to be used for timber and water is bull. Historically, particularly during certain administrations, the national forests have been used to the sole benefit of certain corporations, easily identified, and bankrupt when the mood suits them. Sweetheart deals. The monies paid for the timber don't even cover the "management," which, at times, was specious at best. Crony profiteering. Does anyone know if any form of non-biased (and by biased, I mean in full support of, or silly political derogation of, a National Park) study has been undertaken on this matter, or is our Chief Executive ignoring this hoping it will go away? He blew $1mm on a biased study intended to reduce public assistance programs in Maine. Nothing on this issue?

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

"The Federal National Parks are well run and are a treasure to the Nation."

I can't believe this person has had much exposure to the federal government if it seems to be "well run". They spent over a million dollars developing a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians simply used an off the shelf mechanical pencil.

Over a hundred years ago the Teddy Roosevelt fad resulted in the displacement of whole towns to buy up forest land as "national forests". They did the same thing in Russia, but our country actually has a Constitution. The stated purpose of national forests was to ensure a good supply of timber and water power for industry. National forests are not being used for their intended purpose. They are viewed as potential national parks and most are run as such. They are not well run.

This is incorrect. The National Forest Service was created in the last quarter of the 19th Century, so that was quite a few years before the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, although President Roosevelt was a great supporter of the Forests and signed legislation creating several National Parks. One of the original purposes was to preserve forest last for future generations, but it was not being done to benefit industries. Water power isn't even mentioned on the Forest Service web page. Since the stated purpose is to preserve forested land for future generations, any unused forest service land is, by definition, meeting its intended purpose.

I saw nothing about buying up residential areas for the Forest Service.

History of the United States Forest Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USDA Forest Service - Caring for the land and serving people.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

Solitude could be maintained within a National Park. In fact, a National Park would protect that aspect for generations to come. It is really the only way to guarantee that it will be permanent, forever.

Not if it's going to draw the crowds you say it is. The LUPC pretty much ensures most of that area will never see much development. A national park will simply take away the freedom and culture of the locals and visitors alike. A national forest will leave many of those things intact but there's still the issue of local vs federal control.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

"Water power isn't even mentioned on the Forest Service web page. -break-
I saw nothing about buying up residential areas for the Forest Service."

Of course not. Their web page is about scenery, birds, flowers and reserving campsites. It's the law that states the purpose of seizing the land. There are still people in NH whose families lived in the towns of Chatham, Cutts Grant, Bean's Purchase, Sargent's Purchase, Bean's Grant, Hadley's Purchase, Thompson's Purchase and others. Their whole towns were seized by eminent domain. The people were given whatever the government decided to give them. Then the homes were burned after it snowed.

Maine has done this in the past. The legislative committee I testified before was fascinated with the story of "The Lost Villages of Flagstaff Lake". There is a book by that name. Those four towns were seized by Central Maine Power with legislative approval so the company could build a dam at Long Falls on the Dead River. CMP got all that land, the timber, the homes, churches, saw mills, general stores, grain mill, blacksmith shops and graveyards. Some people would not leave. They were rescued when the water rose above the first floor. Armed guards accompanied the CMP agents when they served the eviction notices to the property owners in the towns of Long Falls, Bigelow, Dead River and Flagstaff.

You can buy the book on line. By the way, CMP never built a hydro dam and the water rose to within six feet of J. P. Morgan's hunting camp. Then he had a fishing camp too. The web site of a government agency is not a good place to research history. They don't tell the relevant truth.

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

"Water power isn't even mentioned on the Forest Service web page. -break-
I saw nothing about buying up residential areas for the Forest Service."

Of course not. Their web page is about scenery, birds, flowers and reserving campsites. It's the law that states the purpose of seizing the land. There are still people in NH whose families lived in the towns of Chatham, Cutts Grant, Bean's Purchase, Sargent's Purchase, Bean's Grant, Hadley's Purchase, Thompson's Purchase and others. Their whole towns were seized by eminent domain. The people were given whatever the government decided to give them. Then the homes were burned after it snowed.

Maine has done this in the past. The legislative committee I testified before was fascinated with the story of "The Lost Villages of Flagstaff Lake". There is a book by that name. Those four towns were seized by Central Maine Power with legislative approval so the company could build a dam at Long Falls on the Dead River. CMP got all that land, the timber, the homes, churches, saw mills, general stores, grain mill, blacksmith shops and graveyards. Some people would not leave. They were rescued when the water rose above the first floor. Armed guards accompanied the CMP agents when they served the eviction notices to the property owners in the towns of Long Falls, Bigelow, Dead River and Flagstaff.

You can buy the book on line. By the way, CMP never built a hydro dam and the water rose to within six feet of J. P. Morgan's hunting camp. Then he had a fishing camp too. The web site of a government agency is not a good place to research history. They don't tell the relevant truth.

Are they planning on building a dam?

[Northern Maine Land Man]

They built the dam to create a fish pond for J. P. Morgan, but there is no hydro power plant and never will be.

[ClownShoes]

Originally Posted by Kracer

Maine legally hands over its state owned land to the federal government who then has total control.

Essentially you have to pass through Maine and actually leave Maine when you step onto federal land.

Federal rules are often set by federal regulations which by pass the states elected representatives.

Social justice rules and other politically driven actions may be imposed on that island of federal land within Maine's borders that are contrary to the wishes of Maine residents.

Traditional use may be hindered and in conflict with state desires and culture.

The federal government of recent years is unpredictable and subject to the vagaries of political appointees such as the latest head of BLM who has no experience in that field and whose appointment was a departure from tradition criteria used to appoint leadership.

Exactly what he said, word for word. Excellent post!