June 19, 2019

North Woods national park debate centers on distrust of government, jobs

*Editor’s Note* – Those that are familiar with my writings know that I support private land ownership and promote that a landowner should be able to do what they wish with their land. I’ve also said that if Ms. Quimby believes a park, on her land in northern Maine, would be such a grand idea, perhaps she should employ some of her own capitalism genius and open her own private park on her own private land. But, because she proposes a national park, which would involve taxpayer money, along with more co-existence with a fascist government, she leaves her proposal open to public debate and scrutiny.

According to the 2013 Operating Report of Baxter State Park, 117,481 visitors came to the park that year – or about 322 people per day. The headline above, taken from the article linked to below, may be what some are focusing the debate about, but it may be just a distraction. The reality is the talk of jobs and a bolster to the region’s economy is a moot point if nobody is going to come.

According to the National Park Service, 2,563,129 people visited Acadia Park in 2014. Some seriously believe a National Park in the middle of nowhere, that doesn’t come close to comparing with Acardia, with nothing more to see and do than Baxter State Park, will at least share some of those visitors to Acadia, or even come close to the same number of visitors.

Unless Ms. Quimby intends on building a modern theme park, which is nothing the National Park Service has really ventured into, I fail to see why more people would be expected to visit a piece of land adjacent to Baxter State Park when there is Baxter State Park, which is not, by park attraction standards, overrun with visitors.

The article, linked to below, describes for readers what the author thinks the proposed park would look like: a rough road, a “stunning” view of Mt. Katahdin, hiking trails, nearby camping and boat launches. He just described Anywhere, Maine, except the “Anywhere” is in the middle of nowhere.

The author can do no better that to offer up a couple of pictures of the region – a picture of water flowing over rocks (found in a million places in Maine) and a second picture showing the destruction by beavers on the forest.

If you build it, they won’t come. They don’t come to Katahdin and I’ve seen no proposed plans that would make this new park anymore attractive than Baxter.

And there is another aspect few discuss. As was told to me by a friend, a guide he knows from Northern Maine reminded him that, once folks find out that we have black flies, mosquitoes and deer flies they find better uses for their time and money.

The National Park Service cannot properly take care of the nearly 400 parks included in the system. Of the 280,000,000 million visitors to national parks annually, the average becomes around 700,000 visitors per year. I have serious doubts that any new park proposal adjacent to Baxter State Park will come close to that number, thus rendering any national park just another burden on Park System and ultimately the taxpayer.

With all of this in mind, has anybody considered that with all the talk we hear from lawmakers in Washington each year about selling off federal lands, are there ever any guarantees that the Federal Government, i.e. the National Park Service, along with its active participation with the United Nations in finding land globally to lock up and keep people out of, won’t sell this land to the Chinese or do with it something worse, should they discover this park a huge liability?

The ten least visited national parks, ranging in visitors from under 12,000 annually to 175,000 annually, have far more to offer than a view of a mountain, water tumbling over some rocks and trees that beaver have destroyed.

The bottom line is there is NOTHING within this park proposal that even remotely rises to the level of national park consideration.

Let it go. One would think that with the persistence in the effort, there must be some politics behind it and not just some generosity of a philanthropist.

I don’t even think the area would make a good location to raise bees.

A rough loop road includes a stunning view of Mount Katahdin, the state’s highest peak, and hiking trails lead to several nearby summits. Existing camping areas were used this summer by artists, Boy Scouts, summer camps, educational programs and Colby College. Several boat launches provide access to the East Branch of the Penobscot River, which Thoreau rode on a flat-bottomed bateau on his final visit here in 1857.

Soaring eagles, lumbering moose and bounding snowshoe hares are common sights. Other wildlife includes bears, fisher cats and federally protected Canada lynx.

Source: North Woods national park debate centers on distrust of government, jobs | Sun Journal

Share

Did you seriously think Millinocket would be the next Bar Harbor? 

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that the national park proposal has very little to do with saving the region’s economy, or even protecting the area’s environment, and everything to do with destroying the region’s culture. It’s another condescending salvo in an ongoing cultural war that included 2014’s bear baiting referendum.

Source: Did you seriously think Millinocket would be the next Bar Harbor? | Hunter’s Breakfast

Share

SAM Resolution Opposing National Park

From the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s Facebook page:

The SAM Board of Directors has passed this Resolution in opposition to a new National Park as proposed by Roxanne Quimby adjacent to Baxter State Park. Feel free to share it. It will also appear in the next SAM News.

RESOLUTION OF THE SPORTSMAN’S ALLIANCE OF MAINE REGARDING A PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK AND RECREATIONAL AREA IN NORTHERN MAINE

WE, The 10,000 members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, assembled for the purpose of advocating for conservation of our natural resources and for the defense of our sporting heritage believe that the proposed National Park and Recreational Area plan is flawed in that it excludes a range of vital economic, cultural and traditional recreational uses such as hunting, trapping and snowmobiling; in addition; Maine’s public access and forestry policies have historically ensured a productive industrial forest which over many generations has provided high paying jobs for Maine citizens and contributed to Maine’s tax base while providing a rich range of recreational opportunities which are not allowed under National Park Service policies.

Further, the proposed park is not a Maine idea but quite the opposite. It threatens established land management practices, robust forestry-related economic activity, and the varied traditional recreational uses which Maine citizens hold dear. Additionally, the so-called “Recreational Area” proposal rests in very large part on the future acquisition (by unspecified means) of tens of thousands of acres to which the park’s proponents have neither rights nor title. And,

WHEREAS, the forests of Maine provide thousands of proud Mainers with good jobs and sporting opportunities to recreate; and

WHEREAS, the creation of a National Park would prohibit economic activity such as logging, operation of sporting camps, and retail activities to support the businesses there; and

WHEREAS, management of Maine’s historic fisheries would be thrown into question, possibly stifling opportunities to seek native brook trout and landlocked salmon; and

WHEREAS, sustainable forest practices enhance wildlife habitat and prevent fire danger; and

WHEREAS, hunting, trapping, snowmobiling, and other traditional outdoor activities would be severely limited or banned in a National Park, obliterating hundreds of years of traditional access; and

WHEREAS, the so-called Recreational Area is mostly owned by private landowners and proponents of the Park and Recreation would have to acquire the property and that acquisition is in question, and

WHEREAS, hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling are worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Maine’s rural economy every year, and would be negatively affected; and

WHEREAS, “eco-tourism” around a National Park can be defined as seasonal tee-shirt shops, water slides, and miniature golf courses as found in the approaches to Acadia National Park in areas that were once abundant farmland; and

WHEREAS, our sporting tradition and heritage is what makes Maine truly a special place and world-class destination that would be impossible to maintain in or around a National Park; and

WHEREAS, the discussion of a National Park creates divisions within our communities when we should be working together, therefore The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, as the state’s largest conservation organization, resolve that:

1. We stand in strong opposition to the creation of a National Park and Recreational Area and further, and,

2. We stand in firm defense of our sporting heritage, in order to bestow and endow future generations with the same blessings that have been bestowed to us.

Share

Anti-Park Group Sends Letter Asking Quimby Family to Drop Idea 

*Editor’s Comment* – If you kick a dog enough times, eventually the dog will turn on you.

“Despite all your efforts and expenditures, the people of Medway and East Millinocket have now joined the Millinocket Town Council in resoundingly rejecting your plan for a national park,” the open letter continues. “The opposition in these towns is even more striking given the economic devastation the region has experienced with the demise of Great Northern Paper. Yet, as much as the Katahdin Region desperately needs investment and new jobs, the people in the towns that would be most impacted by your plans have told you ‘no.’ ”

Source: Anti-Park Group Sends Letter Asking Quimby Family to Drop Idea | Maine Public Broadcasting

Share

What if Quimby and St. Clair Understood Their Screw Up

*Editor’s Comment* – Roxanne Quimby took advantage of a semi-capitalist opportunity to make money. But she espouses to communism/socialism – Period. This makes little sense, unless you understand the real intent here. She bought lots of land – congratulations and good for her. Within our over-regulated world of fascism, she is entitle to do with her land as she so pleases – even locking it up so others can’t use it. However, you can’t expect to treat Maine people in the fashion she has and then turn around and ask the same people to jump on her totalitarian band wagon and support a limited use national park structured under the current growing fascist government.

Maine people are a unique clutch of independents with very long memories. Any group of people that would elect Ross Perot as their candidate for president of the United States has to be looked at as, if nothing else, unpredictable.

I am assuming that the biggest reason Ms. Quimby placed her son in the forefront is because she became toxic. Problem is, that toxicity has not dissipated. The independence of the Maine people and their desire to keep fascist government out of their state, combined with memories like elephants as to how Quimby treated them from the onset, is a very large hurdle, of which I’m not sure she can ever get over – at least not for a very long time.

I asked yesterday why it seemed so important that Quimby and St. Clair force an unwanted park onto the Maine people. Is she that big an egoist that she wants her name attached to a national park? Perhaps, I don’t know the woman.

If Quimby and St. Clair, along with their minions, believe that the park would be such a wonderful thing, that would bring jobs and whatever else one can trump up as a positive, then why doesn’t the woman create a private enterprise park? If it’s such a value to her, her son and the people of Maine, then surely her vision of a park would work just fine – wouldn’t it? Quimby claims she has money in trust to pay for the park. Is that money no good unless it’s a government park? If so, then just where, exactly, is this money coming from? China?

Nobody can tell me that a national park, run by a corrupt and inept government, that has proven itself incapable to caring for the parks and land they administer now, would do a Quimby park any good and thus nothing good for the State of Maine and her people.

It’s probably too late now, but as is suggested in this linked-to article, if Quimby had started off right, which would have been having a firm understanding of the people she would be dealing with, then perhaps a coalition of leaders, whose goal would be in the best interest of the local people and not a continuation of making poor slaves to government control, the region around Baxter might have a sweeter outlook for the future and a willingness to work with and not against the woman.

Source: What if Quimby and St. Clair worked with locals on a comprehensive economic plan for the Millinocket region? | Mainely Thoughts

Share

East Millinocket voters reject national park by wide margin

One day, a neighbor came knocking on the door. “I have a gift for you.” Upon examination of the gift, the people found out it was really nothing they wanted. The gift was pink paint to paint their house. Attempting to be gracious, they nicely explained that they appreciated the gesture, but accepting the gift would present a host of problems for the household. Yet, the gift bearer kept insisting.

Discovering that it appeared the people didn’t want the pink paint, the neighbor went to another town to find people who thought the pink paint would look good on the house anyway. Believing that if enough people who didn’t have to deal with an unwanted “gift” was willing to accept the free paint, the homeowner would just have to learn to like it.

A poor analogy perhaps on my part, but what is so important with the creation of an unwanted national park that Roxanne Quimby is determined to go out of town, or anywhere that it takes, in order to find enough people who want a pink house in the Millinocket, Maine region?

The message has been sent and continues to be sent that, people who live nearest to Quimby’s dreamland national park of nothingness, don’t want the gift. There is nothing there that would lure tourists to see and do. Few, by comparison, visit Baxter State Park. A park beside it becomes nothing more than more trees surrounding one mountain. Give it a rest. Otherwise, this becomes just another example of how a society emboldened in their totalitarian socialism, feels it necessary to force their way of life onto others.

EAST MILLINOCKET, Maine – Residents voted 320-191 against a proposed 150,000-acre North Woods national park in a nonbinding referendum on Monday. The 40 percent of registered voters who participated in Monday’s polling exceeds the 36 percent of r egistered balloters in Medway who rejected the park, 252-102, in a nonbinding […]

Source: East Millinocket voters reject national park by wide margin — Outdoors — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

East Millinocket vote on national park draws ‘excellent’ turnout

*Editor’s Note* – Perhaps not so much to most people, but to me, the idea that those pushing a worthless “national park” in a place nobody wants to go, for no reason other than to gawk at a mountain, need to present the park as something it isn’t, should be RELEVANT. There once was a day when being honest about anything was relevant. In today’s decedent society, where truth and honesty no longer exists, to some of us the notion that lying to sell something, is terribly troubling.

St. Clair has said the precise acreage is irrelevant and an attempt by the proposal’s opponents to distract residents from the proposal’s merits.

Source: East Millinocket vote on national park draws ‘excellent’ turnout — Outdoors — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

In national park debate, where’s the honey? | Mainely Thoughts

“I was inspired by the bees, the way they all worked together,” she said. “I thought, ‘Oh, what good little communists they are. Well, except for that queen in there.’” — Roxanne Quimby

Over the past several days, I’ve been doing research on Quimby’s national park and recreation area proposal. When I got to that quote in a March 2008 article in Yankee Magazine, I laughed. It was too perfect an analogy to ignore.

Source: In national park debate, where’s the honey? | Mainely Thoughts

Share

In national park debate, where’s the honey?

“I was inspired by the bees, the way they all worked together,” she said. “I thought, ‘Oh, what good little communists they are. Well, except for that queen in there.’” — Roxanne Quimby

Over the past several days, I’ve been doing research on Quimby’s national park and recreation area proposal. When I got to that quote in a March 2008 article in Yankee Magazine, I laughed. It was too perfect an analogy to ignore.

Somewhere in Quimby’s motivations, was there the idea she would take over the North Woods like a queen bee, and all the folks up there would get in line like “good little communists”? We all know her former neighbors aren’t the “good little communist” type.

Source: In national park debate, where’s the honey? | Mainely Thoughts

Share

Maine Voices: Quimby’s promises don’t sound right

Her plan to donate 150,000 acres seems at odds with known data and the advice of Gov. Percival Baxter.

Source: Maine Voices: Quimby’s promises don’t sound right – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Share