Vote NO on Federal Park (Lincoln, Millinocket: to live, price, legally)

[Submariner]

When I consider Yosemite Park [near where I grew-up], I know that even before it was made a park it had spectacular granite cliffs, waterfalls, clear streams, Giant Sequoia groves, and biological diversity. The park has an elevation range from 2,127 to 13,114 feet, and 1,200 sq miles of really cool things. It has deep narrow canyons, and glaciers in it's alpine meadows. The Hetch Hetchy Valley 'Grand Canyon of the West' provides potable water to San Francisco, and when O'Shaughnessy Dam was built it now powers San Francisco. It has El Capitan [surely someone has heard of the spin-off coat factory called North Face their logo is a picture of El Capitan]. Plus Sentinel Dome and Half Dome rise 3,000 and 4,800 feet respectively, above the valley floor. Tuolumne Meadows, Dana Meadows, the Clark Range, the Cathedral Range, the Kuna Crest, the Sierra crest and the Pacific Crest Trail run through Yosemite; Mount Dana and Mount Gibbs, Mount Conness, Mount Lyell [The Lyell Glacier is the largest glacier in Yosemite National Park]. The park has three groves of ancient Giant Sequoia trees; the Mariposa Grove, the Tuolumne Grove and the Merced Grove. Yosemite is famous for its high concentration of waterfalls in a small area. Yosemite Falls 2,425-foot, Ribbon Falls, 1,612 feet, Bridalveil Fall, Wapama Falls, and hundreds of ephemeral waterfalls also exist in the park.

Yosemite draws mountain climbers and cliff crawlers. Hang-gliding off half-dome is great. I remember as a child driving through the center of huge redwood trees.

Huge massive crowds go there, and they would go there even if it was not a National Park.

It is not the park that draws the crowds, the cool stuff draws the crowds. The park is the mechanism we use to regulate and guide the flow of tourists, to preserve the region for the future.

Declaring a place 'National Park' does not suddenly manufacture all these kinds of things. They have to preexist.

Declaring the North Woods of Maine to be a National Park will not draw crowds from Japan and Finland, without the same caliber of features as what a National Park has.

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by maineguy8888

My family DOES visit as tourists, but we'd stop if the feds started taking over. We don't support that kind of nonsense).

This says all I need to know...........

[Brodels]

Originally Posted by Submariner

When I consider Yosemite Park [near where I grew-up], I know that even before it was made a park it had spectacular granite cliffs, waterfalls, clear streams, Giant Sequoia groves, and biological diversity. The park has an elevation range from 2,127 to 13,114 feet, and 1,200 sq miles of really cool things. It has deep narrow canyons, and glaciers in it's alpine meadows. The Hetch Hetchy Valley 'Grand Canyon of the West' provides potable water to San Francisco, and when O'Shaughnessy Dam was built it now powers San Francisco. It has El Capitan [surely someone has heard of the spin-off coat factory called North Face their logo is a picture of El Capitan]. Plus Sentinel Dome and Half Dome rise 3,000 and 4,800 feet respectively, above the valley floor. Tuolumne Meadows, Dana Meadows, the Clark Range, the Cathedral Range, the Kuna Crest, the Sierra crest and the Pacific Crest Trail run through Yosemite; Mount Dana and Mount Gibbs, Mount Conness, Mount Lyell [The Lyell Glacier is the largest glacier in Yosemite National Park]. The park has three groves of ancient Giant Sequoia trees; the Mariposa Grove, the Tuolumne Grove and the Merced Grove. Yosemite is famous for its high concentration of waterfalls in a small area. Yosemite Falls 2,425-foot, Ribbon Falls, 1,612 feet, Bridalveil Fall, Wapama Falls, and hundreds of ephemeral waterfalls also exist in the park.

Yosemite draws mountain climbers and cliff crawlers. Hang-gliding off half-dome is great. I remember as a child driving through the center of huge redwood trees.

Huge massive crowds go there, and they would go there even if it was not a National Park.

It is not the park that draws the crowds, the cool stuff draws the crowds. The park is the mechanism we use to regulate and guide the flow of tourists, to preserve the region for the future.

Declaring a place 'National Park' does not suddenly manufacture all these kinds of things. They have to preexist.

Declaring the North Woods of Maine to be a National Park will not draw crowds from Japan and Finland, without the same caliber of features as what a National Park has.

I totally agree with this. I have no idea what people would actually do in this park.

Would people go there to hike? I would guess they would want to go to Baxter, Acadia, the Camden Hills, or even Grafton Notch or the 100 Mile Wilderness, all places that have better hiking opportunities than one will ever be able to find in this proposed national park.

Would people go there to ski? There are already places to ski that are more beautiful, and people have access to world-class nordic trails in Maine. It's hard to imagine thousands of people flocking to Quimby's land to ski.

There are better options around for fishing and rafting, too.

Given this, it seems like this piece of land is perfectly suited for traditional uses by locals, which is exactly what the park will eliminate. If we had the ability to choose, I think that most people could identify at least a dozen other places in Maine that would be better suited for a national park.

It quite possibly would be the least spectacular national park in the nation, and it's far from population centers. So why not try to promote traditional uses by local people on this tract of land, and try to funnel tourists to places like Acadia, Baxter, the Maine Coast, etc.? I just don't understand why people would travel to what undoubtedly is a nice, wooded piece of land but is a place that is not as interesting as some other places in Maine and lacks the big hook that so many other national parks bank on.

[Submariner]

I am not saying that Maine is not great. I chose to move here and to live in rural Maine.

Maine has miles and miles and miles of trees, streams and ponds. You could cut new roads through the forest, giving greater access to even more trees, streams and ponds.

But are there steam geysers? No.

Mountains peaks so tall you need to pack an O2 bottle? No.

Shear granite cliffs that take a week for a climber to reach the top? No.

Glaciers? No.



I like Maine's trees, streams and ponds. I like miles and miles of rural.

I do not see what big ticket feature is here that could draw in the crowds that support a National Park.

Maine's primary industry is tourism. Our biggest industry is tourists. Maine has guides and camps, and over 3,000 miles of coast line that already draws tourists.

[maineguy8888]

Originally Posted by IHeartMaine

This says all I need to know...........

Glad to help.

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by Submariner

I am not saying that Maine is not great. I chose to move here and to live in rural Maine.

Maine has miles and miles and miles of trees, streams and ponds. You could cut new roads through the forest, giving greater access to even more trees, streams and ponds.

But are there steam geysers? No.

Mountains peaks so tall you need to pack an O2 bottle? No.

Shear granite cliffs that take a week for a climber to reach the top? No.

Glaciers? No.



I like Maine's trees, streams and ponds. I like miles and miles of rural.

I do not see what big ticket feature is here that could draw in the crowds that support a National Park.

Maine's primary industry is tourism. Our biggest industry is tourists. Maine has guides and camps, and over 3,000 miles of coast line that already draws tourists.

I have to ask: have any of you been to Siberia? Your answer to that would be telling.

I'm neither in support of, nor staunchly against a National Park. But I've been to Siberia many times. Have you?

[elston]

There seems to be a sentiment to devalue the recreational value of the land in question. If everyone thinks there is nothing there of interest or special enough to warrant creating a national park....perhaps Ms. Quimby should consider offering the land as a National Wildlife sanctuary.....much more restricted access....but permanently maintained in a pristine state as wildlife habitat.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

I agree with Elston. A National Park becomes a destination. People travel to the US from all over the world and they look to go to the National Parks. It would be an economic boost to any area. This is not a right wing vs left wing issue.(ie. "social justice rules may be imposed that are contrary to the wishes of Maine residents"--that is nonsense). Some people watch Fox too much. The Federal National Parks are well run and are a treasure to the Nation.

If it's not a "right wing vs left wing issue" then keep your political jabs to yourself.

As for the park, I have my own thoughts about it but I'm not one who has lived in Maine my whole life, and who knows if I'll stay here the rest of my life. However, the way I see it, the people of the state should have the vote; the government should not just come in and do what it wants.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

"I have to ask: have any of you been to Siberia? Your answer to that would be telling."

Back during the spruce budworm epidemic, the environmental industry issued a press release about landowners raping the land because they needed to salvage as much dead spruce as they could. The press release was featured in many newspapers. It showed a vast expanse of clear cut land. It gave the impression that the forests in Maine were gone!

The photograph was taken from a Russian forestry magazine. The photograph was taken in Siberia. Thanks Maineac for reminding me. The reason the environmental industry likes Maine so much is that we landowners have taken such good care of it for the last four centuries.

[kellysmith]

Originally Posted by Maineac

I have to ask: have any of you been to Siberia? Your answer to that would be telling.

I'm neither in support of, nor staunchly against a National Park. But I've been to Siberia many times. Have you?

I've never been to Siberia, but did work at the Swift Brook sawmill operated by Sherman Lumber Company. I remember the McMoran family who wanted the reward for finding Don Fendler in at the mouth of Wassataquoik. (Don's father refused to pay it because he felt Don found them) I remember my Grandparents speaking of Siberia, but don't know anyone who refers to that part of Stacyville by that term now. I also know where the foundations of the homes that made up Davidson are. Lastly, I consider myself a local who sees no benefit to having that area part of any National Park, not that that area is being considered. The initial township Quimby bought was well north of "Siberia". She horse traded that for the Katahdin Lake property.