Vote NO on Federal Park (Bangor, Augusta: motel, bankruptcy, camping)

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Bangor, Maine | News, Sports, Weather | WABI TV5

It would be an economic disaster for Northern Maine. Remember that Channel 5 was founded by Hoddy Hildreth, the biggest advocate for a federal park in Northern Maine.

[elston]

National Parks are usually considered to be an economic boon to the region in which they are located. They bring families into the area to enjoy the natural wonder of our country. They spend money, for accomodations, food, gas, and services.
During the government shut down....millions of dollars were lost from the economy of the areas where parks are located, due to the closing of the parks.

IMO, Maine could use another national park....and the income they generate. I believe in the mission of national parks to preserve nature and make it accessible to the American people; there is an element of patriotism and national pride in the development of National Parks.

[Maineac]

I'd rather have more cogent information rather than a simple, political knee-jerk reaction stemming from an unsubstantiated dislike of anyone that is pro-environment. Cate Street isn't exactly turning out to be the regional savior that big business and development followers and cheerleaders would like, yet they still intend to pursue $25 million in taxpayer FAME money after filing for bankruptcy. That'll get distributed quickly as bonuses and salaries, I'm sure. I guess that's how it works when you take your cues from the Kochs. I'm sure the small businesses around Mill and E. Mill are thrilled with having to lien the mill. Still, we're a long ways from another national park. Rather than play politics for no legitimate reason whatsoever, I'd like to hear the legitimate pros and cons of a National Park.

[elston]

I agree with Maineac, that more information is needed in order for people to make informed decisions about what is best for all the people and the state. Maine needs to find ways to expand its economy while preserving its unique resources and quality of life. A well run park might fit that need.

The National parks I have visited have been very well run; that is one thing the government does particularly well.

[Maineac]

Don't get me wrong- I just don't KNOW or have any reasonably formulated opinion on the National Park question. If hadn't committed to playing banjo last night, I'd have gone to listen to the presentation by Lucas St. Clair, Roxanne Quimby's son, at the Bangor Public Library. The extremes on the issue have no business in the matter, and no impact on my opinion other than a negative one. Bark the far right marching mantra, and I'll go the other way out of disgust. Demand the Friends of Animals, Maine Wildlife Alliance, PETA and other positions, and you lose me immediately. The extremes would do well to stay out of it and let common sense prevail - which, at this point, I haven't figured out. Need real economic data from both sides of the fence, without the "NP jobs pay minimum wage" and "we'll lose the timber industry" unsubstantiated hogwash.

[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.

[Maineac]

Not too many appointees these days have any qualifications for the job. You need look no further than Augusta for proof of that. State Parks that were within the bounds of municipalities are the same way. The question remains as to the ultimate economic benefit. How would a national park impact the lives of the AVERAGE taxpayer in Maine? How, for example, has Acadia impacted property values, quality of life, area economics, etc.? Possible apples to oranges comparison there. Maybe not. What is the reality of, for example, Cates Street and the E. Millinocket mill? Take the money and run? How is this any better or worse than a national park? Speculation about the possibility that traditional uses "may" be hindered and in conflict with states desires and culture is just that - speculation. There's more to this than simply taking a position based on a dislike of Federal ownership. I'm contemplating Acadia, Yosemite, White Mountain National Forest, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc. Not sure the argument holds water. Never heard much about locals hating the national parks, but also never really looked into it.

[kellysmith]

Originally Posted by Maineac

There's more to this than simply taking a position based on a dislike of Federal ownership. I'm contemplating Acadia, Yosemite, White Mountain National Forest, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc. Not sure the argument holds water. Never heard much about locals hating the national parks, but also never really looked into it.

The problem I see with your argument is the land in question isn't like any of those you mention. It's a black fly infested piece of ground that has one thing going for it. You can see Mt Katahdin. What's so special about that ground anyway? There is nothing I am aware of to draw tourists. They might be fooled into coming once, but the business to be in would be motel operator in Millinocket because they probably won't spend one full day in the woods during fly season.

[Coaster]

Originally Posted by kellysmith

The problem I see with your argument is the land in question isn't like any of those you mention. It's a black fly infested piece of ground that has one thing going for it. You can see Mt Katahdin. What's so special about that ground anyway? There is nothing I am aware of to draw tourists. They might be fooled into coming once, but the business to be in would be motel operator in Millinocket because they probably won't spend one full day in the woods during fly season.

The land does have three above-average rivers running through it. St. Clair talks about a 75,000-acre national park, where camping, hiking, skiing, fishing etc. are allowed but not hunting, ATVs or snowmobiles, and a 75,000-acre national recreation area, where those other uses are allowed, along with some timber cutting. His mother, Roxanne Quimby, currently owns about 100,000 acres. He has stated that the maximum amount of land involved would be 150,000 acres for the two uses combined. That's 59,000 acres less than Baxter State Park.

I too am skeptical of the economic argument, if only because the comparisons used -- Livingston, Montana, for example -- are associated with well known national parks with spectacular landscapes. If having a nice view of Katahdin is all you need, then you can put the park in Danforth. If someone really wants to protect that land, then why not donate it to Baxter?

As for the black flies, they don't seem to affect visitor numbers at Baxter.

[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.