Katahdin Chamber supports national park feasibility study

By Nick Sambides Jr., BDN Staff

Posted July 20, 2011, at 9:26 p.m.

MILLINOCKET, Maine — The Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce supports a study of the feasibility of creating a national park near Baxter State Park, its president said Wednesday.

With members Deb Roundtree and Thomas Malcolm absent, the Chamber’s board of directors voted 9-0 on Tuesday to support the study, which board members recommended concentrate on three basic areas, President Chip Lamson said.

The vote came less than 24 hours after noted environmentalist and Burt’s Bees founder Roxanne Quimby spoke of her plan for a national park to about 200 residents during a meeting at Stearns High School.

“That alone would reflect well on the meeting,” Lamson said Wednesday. “We haven’t polled the membership. I will say that all the feedback we have received so far has been very positive and supportive for a feasibility study. As far as actually supporting a national park, we haven’t taken a position on that.”

Quimby hopes to make a gift of 70,000 acres she owns next to Baxter to the federal government for a park in 2016 and has promised to continue to work toward that goal, which she termed a part of her legacy, even if it goes beyond that year.

The Legislature passed a resolve last month opposing Quimby’s initiative, through which she hopes to create a Maine Woods National Park. The park would be nearly twice the size of Acadia National Park.

Sportsmen would get another 30,000 acres north of Dover-Foxcroft to be managed like a state park, with hunting and snowmobiling allowed.

Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected.

The initiative’s opponents, which include several Millinocket Town Council members, fear that it would be the death knell to the Katahdin region’s forest products industries. They portrayed the park service as staggered by debt and unable to care for the parks it has, and say tourism jobs offer low wages.

Proponents say the park would be an economic lifeline to the region, bringing in hundreds of thousands of tourists more than does Baxter, without threatening the area’s traditional industries.

U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans whose support Quimby called critical to the park approval process, expressed skepticism Tuesday much in line with opponents’. U.S. Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree have said they want to hear more about her plan before deciding. Pingree favors a study.

Snowe said a national park “would cause a region of the state to be governed by decisions dictated from Washington,” and to Collins, a park “would most likely spell the end to the working forest that has provided thousands of good jobs to the area’s families for generations.”

Councilors agreed to table a resolve condemning a national park until Quimby could pitch her plan to residents.

The Chamber recommended that a feasibility study concentrate on three areas:

• The area’s qualifications for designation as a national park.

• A national park’s economic and social impacts on the Katahdin region.

• An assessment of the National Park Service’s ability to manage and maintain a park.

The Chamber represents businesses from the Katahdin region and surrounding towns.

The Millinocket Town Council is due to address whether to support a feasibility study next week, while Medway school committee members have agreed to support one. East Millinocket leaders are mulling whether to take up the question.

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

Keep it civil and stay on topic
No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

Anonymous

Wow. The times they are a changing.
Anonymous

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind…
Anonymous

Now do you agree…..The Chamber is useless! LOL Wait let me rephrase that….the Katahdin Region Chamber of Commerce is a JOKE!
Anonymous

No surprise there.
Anonymous

They truley are useless indeed.
Anonymous

Who`s buddy will get paid for the numb study…??????
Anonymous

Thats good, Chip Lamson isn’t even a resident of Millinocket and Tom Malcom has never been in the woods. You look at who’s on the Chamber and you can see why they voted for a study.
Anonymous

PRO-This will bring in 200,000 more visitors.
CON But there is nothing there to see
PRO-you have moose the west branch,BSP,
CON so this is about more than 70,000 acres
PRO-no this is only about 70,000 acres she said so
CON but there is nothing there to see
PRO- you have moose the west branch,BSP, katahdin, debsoneag lakes,
CON so this IS about more than 70,000 acres
PRO-no this is only about 70,000 acres she said so
CON but there is nothing there to see
PRO- you have moose the west branch,BSP, katahdin, debsoneag lakes, lobster lake, shin falls
CON so this ISSS about more than 70,000 acres
Anonymous

A glimmer of intelligence from the north!
Anonymous

Just found this website. I’ve already signed up. http://www.DontFenceMEin.us The people we thought could save us from creating a government-run circus in the woods haven’t been able to do it. She took her marketing campaign to Millinocket and won over the useful idiots. Looks like we’re on our own and need to hang together to wage the battle.
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

“Another 10 million acres of forestland nearby would be unaffected”.

FOR NOW!
yowsayowsa1

Still none in the south.
Anonymous

The con is that if you keep your eyes closed there will not be anything out there to see. The Pro is However if you open your eyes. you could see what is around you. 7 million tourist come to Maine every year. A small per cent come North of Bangor. The reason they do not come is they have not been told how to see what we have in our back yard. The few that venture this far North have what they consider an experience of a lifetime. This experience of a lifetime is in spite of a public relations program that was designed to keep tourist out. It was the policy of the paper industry that lock up this land from view. One road through Roxanne’s land will bring people from all over the world. These people will spend money and go home. All the people of Katahdin have to do is share what God has blessed us with.
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Pretty hard to enjoy her 70000 acres, she has removed all the bridges!
Anonymous

Have you been drinking that funny koolaide again?
Anonymous

The “death knell” is already on your doorstep, and has nothing to do with Miss Quimbys’ 70,000 acre donation and proposal. You would think 21+ percent unemployment would make you want to open new doors and the possibilities that come with doing that. It does not havr to be ”forest products industry” or “National Park”. A co-existence of the two seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Also, having been in that area extensively, anyone saying it is not a unique and special place has not spent any time there or in the woods period. Please Katahdin residents, do not be swayed by the few ignoramuses who post here. It is clear that even if the mills open again, it will unlikely be “times of old” which many hold on to. Nothing wrong with dreaming but eventually you wake up…..or not.
Anonymous

The “death knell” is already on your doorstep, and has nothing to do with Miss Quimbys’ 70,000 acre donation and proposal. You would think 21+ percent unemployment would make you want to open new doors and the possibilities that come with doing that. It does not havr to be ”forest products industry” or “National Park”. A co-existence of the two seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Also, having been in that area extensively, anyone saying it is not a unique and special place has not spent any time there or in the woods period. Please Katahdin residents, do not be swayed by the few ignoramuses who post here. It is clear that even if the mills open again, it will unlikely be “times of old” which many hold on to. Nothing wrong with dreaming but eventually you wake up…..or not.
Anonymous

The “death knell” is already on your doorstep, and has nothing to do with Miss Quimbys’ 70,000 acre donation and proposal. You would think 21+ percent unemployment would make you want to open new doors and the possibilities that come with doing that. It does not havr to be ”forest products industry” or “National Park”. A co-existence of the two seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Also, having been in that area extensively, anyone saying it is not a unique and special place has not spent any time there or in the woods period. Please Katahdin residents, do not be swayed by the few ignoramuses who post here. It is clear that even if the mills open again, it will unlikely be “times of old” which many hold on to. Nothing wrong with dreaming but eventually you wake up…..or not.
Anonymous

The “death knell” is already on your doorstep, and has nothing to do with Miss Quimbys’ 70,000 acre donation and proposal. You would think 21+ percent unemployment would make you want to open new doors and the possibilities that come with doing that. It does not havr to be ”forest products industry” or “National Park”. A co-existence of the two seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Also, having been in that area extensively, anyone saying it is not a unique and special place has not spent any time there or in the woods period. Please Katahdin residents, do not be swayed by the few ignoramuses who post here. It is clear that even if the mills open again, it will unlikely be “times of old” which many hold on to. Nothing wrong with dreaming but eventually you wake up…..or not.
Anonymous

The “death knell” is already on your doorstep, and has nothing to do with Miss Quimbys’ 70,000 acre donation and proposal. You would think 21+ percent unemployment would make you want to open new doors and the possibilities that come with doing that. It does not havr to be ”forest products industry” or “National Park”. A co-existence of the two seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Also, having been in that area extensively, anyone saying it is not a unique and special place has not spent any time there or in the woods period. Please Katahdin residents, do not be swayed by the few ignoramuses who post here. It is clear that even if the mills open again, it will unlikely be “times of old” which many hold on to. Nothing wrong with dreaming but eventually you wake up…..or not.
Anonymous

I applaud the Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce for standing up and saying they support a feasibiltiy study. Anyone interested in getting the facts right should petition congresional leaders to support a study. It is only my opinion but I think all proposals should be considered. We can’t afford to eat never mind retire.
Anonymous

What is the joke? Thought you were in favor of the park concept?
poormaniac

I know a fellow from Boston who came up here about 40 years ago and never went home. Too bad !
Anonymous

Finally, the business community has come out and acted responsibly. Judging from the very warm reception Ms Quimby has received by the townspeople, it is quite obvious that the council does not represent them.
Anonymous

Finally, the business community has come out and acted responsibly. Judging from the very warm reception Ms Quimby has received by the townspeople, it is quite obvious that the council does not represent them.
Anonymous

Not because of a park! The forest industry here in Maine is nearly gone. Developers with other ideas about how to profit from the land (Plum Creek) will change the landscape. Not a park.
Anonymous

Not because of a park! The forest industry here in Maine is nearly gone. Developers with other ideas about how to profit from the land (Plum Creek) will change the landscape. Not a park.
Anonymous

Not because of a park! The forest industry here in Maine is nearly gone. Developers with other ideas about how to profit from the land (Plum Creek) will change the landscape. Not a park.
Anonymous

After speaking with many that attended the last two meetings in Millinocket, combined with how our own two senators, governor, and area representatives feel,,,, Roxanne’s only hope is to start making nice with area opposition.

.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

Finally! Some intelligent people from the area who are willing to consider a feasibility study. With the current anti-business (unless it’s a papermill) crowd occupying millinocket city government our poor town will continue it’s downward slide. It’s time to repeal all town councilors and especially eugene conlogue.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

While I generally support the idea of a national park, I just wonder how one that is closed to all motorized traffic would work. You need a broad base of visitors, including those who bring their tent trailors and RV’s, to make it financially viable and even appealing to more than just a few. Hiking trails alone will not make this work.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

I am in favor of a park.

The Chamber doesn’t do half of what they they should be doing to draw people to the area. That is why they are a joke/useless to me.
Anonymous

Amen to that! The death knell has been struck almost ten years ago but they still have their collective heads buried in the sands of time. Furthermore, they do need to wake-up from the dream that they are having and soon because it is turning into a nightmare for numerous people in the region as the negativity and non-acceptance of new ideas continues to drive business away. The sad thing is that “they” probably don’t even have a clue as to the number of potential businesses that have crossed the katahdin region off their shorts lists due to the constant in-fighting and negativity that has permeated this region for a minimum of ten years.
Anonymous

Sounds like some open minded and intelligent people to me!! :)
Anonymous

I agree!!
Anonymous

Good luck with your “battle”.
Anonymous

Good luck with your “battle”.
Anonymous

Good luck with your “battle”.
Anonymous

The council has never represented the townspeople, only a small, yet vocal minority. It’s time that we took back our town from these bozos”!!! Who’s with me!!!!!
Anonymous

The council has never represented the townspeople, only a small, yet vocal minority. It’s time that we took back our town from these bozos”!!! Who’s with me!!!!!
Anonymous

The council has never represented the townspeople, only a small, yet vocal minority. It’s time that we took back our town from these bozos”!!! Who’s with me!!!!!
Anonymous

The council has never represented the townspeople, only a small, yet vocal minority. It’s time that we took back our town from these bozos”!!! Who’s with me!!!!!
Anonymous

I feel so sorry for you if you think there is nothing to see in the area! Nothing new? I would love to see some new hiking trails! If they come to the National Park hopefully they will do/see more than just the National Park! That is part of Marketing the region as a whole!
Anonymous

I feel so sorry for you if you think there is nothing to see in the area! Nothing new? I would love to see some new hiking trails! If they come to the National Park hopefully they will do/see more than just the National Park! That is part of Marketing the region as a whole!
Anonymous

I feel so sorry for you if you think there is nothing to see in the area! Nothing new? I would love to see some new hiking trails! If they come to the National Park hopefully they will do/see more than just the National Park! That is part of Marketing the region as a whole!
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

Dont’ blame anyone from anywhere else for being a “poormaniac”…Stupidity is no reason to be an Isolationist/Racist( often leads there though)….you will undoughtedly end up “poor” in more ways than one….
Anonymous

I think you are right on the money. That is exactly what it looks like to everyone else beyond the town limits. Medway and E. Millinocket appear to benefit if the park proposal moves ahead, and that will be a shame if Millinocket is left out.
Anonymous

I think you are right on the money. That is exactly what it looks like to everyone else beyond the town limits. Medway and E. Millinocket appear to benefit if the park proposal moves ahead, and that will be a shame if Millinocket is left out.
Anonymous

I think you are right on the money. That is exactly what it looks like to everyone else beyond the town limits. Medway and E. Millinocket appear to benefit if the park proposal moves ahead, and that will be a shame if Millinocket is left out.
Anonymous

SassyJenn….the chamber is finally standing up to the thugs who perpetuate the infighting and fear-mongering. They are not useless at all, but have a huge problem overcoming the negativity and ugliness that a few have created.

The chamber and the downtown revitalization committee have turned the corner, and I suspect they will be the leaders who will move Millinocket into the future. They certainly are the only groups who have a positive view and some degree of hope in the possibilities.
Anonymous

SassyJenn….the chamber is finally standing up to the thugs who perpetuate the infighting and fear-mongering. They are not useless at all, but have a huge problem overcoming the negativity and ugliness that a few have created.

The chamber and the downtown revitalization committee have turned the corner, and I suspect they will be the leaders who will move Millinocket into the future. They certainly are the only groups who have a positive view and some degree of hope in the possibilities.
Anonymous

SassyJenn….the chamber is finally standing up to the thugs who perpetuate the infighting and fear-mongering. They are not useless at all, but have a huge problem overcoming the negativity and ugliness that a few have created.

The chamber and the downtown revitalization committee have turned the corner, and I suspect they will be the leaders who will move Millinocket into the future. They certainly are the only groups who have a positive view and some degree of hope in the possibilities.
Anonymous

That isn’t what she said. There will be at least one loop road as there is in most national parks. The hope is to maintain a somewhat primitive environment. She also said there would be trails for disabled people and wheelchair visitors. She said clearly that she wanted everyone to enjoy this park, not just hiking enthusiasts.

In fact, she said the management plan for the park will have input from many stakeholders, and that would include the locals in Millinocket and the area.
Anonymous

That isn’t what she said. There will be at least one loop road as there is in most national parks. The hope is to maintain a somewhat primitive environment. She also said there would be trails for disabled people and wheelchair visitors. She said clearly that she wanted everyone to enjoy this park, not just hiking enthusiasts.

In fact, she said the management plan for the park will have input from many stakeholders, and that would include the locals in Millinocket and the area.
Anonymous

That isn’t what she said. There will be at least one loop road as there is in most national parks. The hope is to maintain a somewhat primitive environment. She also said there would be trails for disabled people and wheelchair visitors. She said clearly that she wanted everyone to enjoy this park, not just hiking enthusiasts.

In fact, she said the management plan for the park will have input from many stakeholders, and that would include the locals in Millinocket and the area.
Anonymous

The “opposition” is a very small, vocal, and angry group. Our two US Senators have said they don’t have enough information as did Rep. Michaud and Pingree, and that is certainly the case with most of our own legislators who signed on to the pull-a-fast-one resolution Senator Ray orchestrated in the waning hours of the last session.

Roxanne’s challenge is to get her vision and factual information out so everyone – hopefully – can make an informed decision about endorsing a feasibility study that will answer all the questions.

Why is everyone so afraid of a study that will present all of the facts and determine whether a national park will be a good thing for Maine.
yowsayowsa1

“the very warm reception Ms Quimby has received by the townspeople”

Don’t confuse politeness with acceptance.
yowsayowsa1

You know nothing about which you post.

The forest industry is still contributing over 30% of the manufacturing base in this state, even after thirty years of the liberal, union loving, democrat’s attempts to drive it away.

If that is what you call “nearly gone”, I have some ocean front property to sell you in northern Maine.

This is only the first step in a process to nationalize (socialize) the Maine north woods.
Anonymous

How does that jibe with this statement made in May?

“”The land between Baxter State Park and the river”–where the proposed
national park would be–”would be closed to motorized traffic,” Quimby
said. “No snowmobiling, no hunting, and just human-powered recreation
and contemplation.”

As a compromise, Quimby would purchase land on the east side of the
Penobscot River for motorized recreation and donate it to the state or
to the Federal Bureau of Land Management.”

Has she changed her position to allow a loop road?
yowsayowsa1

The more you look, the worse it gets.

The only reason she is being nice to the locals, is because that is part of the requirements of starting the national park process.

Not because of any desire to help the local populace.

She would just as soon we were not here because we are in the way.
yowsayowsa1

Because the “study”, as you call it, already has it’s own conclusion.

We shouldn’t trust the people doing the study any more than her.
yowsayowsa1

Because the “study”, as you call it, already has it’s own conclusion.

We shouldn’t trust the people doing the study any more than her.
yowsayowsa1

Because the “study”, as you call it, already has it’s own conclusion.

We shouldn’t trust the people doing the study any more than her.
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

Does the chamber have a marketing plan for the area that they have implemented? Have they encouraged businesses in the community to work together any way they can? I have yet to see anything of the sort happening out of that chamber. They need to open the visitor center in the Irving parking lot! Who is going to drive 12 miles up the road to see what the area has to offer? Having a visitor center near the interstate can benefit everyone in the area.

Like I’ve said before hanging a shingle on a shack isn’t going to bring people to the area!
Anonymous

When the entrance to the National Park is in Medway, they will have a nice big building there welcoming all the tourist. I wonder if the chamber would want to come to Medway then?
Anonymous

When the entrance to the National Park is in Medway, they will have a nice big building there welcoming all the tourist. I wonder if the chamber would want to come to Medway then?
Anonymous

That small group is more like
the majority of the Town of Millinocket…

Governor LePage has said “the
hell she is”

Senator Collins said that if
she did not get a “consensus of area residents” she would block this in
Washington.

Senator Snowe said “I have
long expressed my concern about authorizing a federal park in northern Maine,
which would cause a region of the state to be governed by decisions dictated
from Washington. Keeping Maine land-use decisions in the hands of Mainers is
critical important to keeping forestry jobs in our state.”

Representative Herbie Clark is
against it-

Representative Doug Thomas is
against it-

Representative Jeff Gifford is
against it-

Millinocket Conservatives are
against this-

The Millinocket Town Manager
is against this-

The Millinocket Town Council
is against this-

The Millinocket Fin and
Feather Club is against this-

The Maine Woods Coalition is
against this-

Why don’t we put to a vote of
residents from town that border this proposed nightmare…

.
Anonymous

Amen
Anonymous

Amen
Anonymous

Amen
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

Oh, I don’t believe there is anything sinister in her motives nor do I think she would stop at trying to help the local populace, if she could. I just have questions about whether her plan, as I understand it, would help as much as she hopes it will.

From your posts, you seem to be one that looks at everything and everybody with a skeptical eye, as if everyone is out to get you and screw you over. I’m a bit more pragmatic in my approach and try to balance trust and judgement.

I would love to see the plan work and I would be an annual visitor if it had a camping area, as I go camping often. As an observer to the process, however, I just have questions, as should everyone, and just wonder if the reality can ever match the dream.
Anonymous

I think a lot of people are just now understanding that…
Anonymous

I think a lot of people are just now understanding that…
Anonymous

I think a lot of people are just now understanding that…
Anonymous

I think a lot of people are just now understanding that…
Anonymous

Sadly Millinocket will be left out and Medway and East Millinocket will prosper. The writing is on the wall and the minds are open in these two towns. I applaud them for their breadth of vision. Millinocket folk have been drinking “tainted” water for far too long. The selfish mindsets of the delusional few shall unfortunately affect the many.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

There isn’t going to be a “study” and the Federal takeover activists know it. National Park Service “feasibility studies” are designed to plan for how to proceed for what they know in advance that they want, using boilerplate planning strategies.

NPS “feasibility studies” are required by law to be preceded by a determination of popular support for the establishment of a park, which this failed 25-year old agenda does not have. They are not objective “studies” taking into account the impacts on local people and property owners and the sordid history of NPS bureaucratic control changing the form of government over a region. The whole point of an NPS takeover of a region it deems to be “nationally significant” is that local interests don’t matter in comparison with a supposed higher “national interest” of preservation of the region.

“Feasibility studies” are not “studies” at all, but rather campaigns controlled by NPS and its supporters to build political momentum for a preconceived agenda by professional political insiders with the money to control a media campaign. They are filled with emotional appeals to scenic imagery and promises no one can keep devised to lull people into going along until it is too late. This has happened over and over all over the country for a very long time and no one should fall for the bait and switch “study” scam. This is not something the National Park Service and its boosters should be allowed to decide for themselves.

There have already been “studies” in Maine going back to the Northern Forest Lands Study and the Northern Forest Lands Council in which the Federal takeover schemes were soundly rejected in spite of the attempts by the pressure groups to rig the results. Now they want what they call a “study” which they and NPS exclusively control to ensure the outcome.

How many times do people have to go through this cynical political process? The wealthy pressure groups keep coming back because they only have to win once to get the land. They can keep coming back over and over because there is a lot of money behind this national campaign to politically steamroll local people and property owners.
Anonymous

This latest initiative in this very well-funded, strategically coordinated campaign is nothing but Roxane Quimby making rosy promises to people who don’t know she is full of BS. She has no authority to make promises for anything to anyone, including the notion of an NPS objective “study”, and no intention of keeping them. She wants Federal control and wilderness. Once Federal control is in place it is over and there is no going back. The purpose of the Quimby/Restore/NPCA Big Park plan is Federally enforced wilderness restoration and the abolition of private property rights and the private economy. That is the opposite of economic development.

Roxanne Quimby told Yankee Magazine three years ago: “To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”

The Maine legislature just voted overwhelmingly last month to reject this “feasibility study” scam for good reason. The local officials who fell for Quimby’s pitch should be ashamed of themselves. They have been had by some very crafty professional manipulators.
Anonymous

You are really off base if you think the the Park Service wants another national park to maintain when they can’t get enough funding to take care of what they already have. And it’s not the Park Service that makes these decisions, anyway, it’s Congress. I suggest you read this article I link to and see the effect pork barrel spending has had on our national park system. You are barking at the wrong people.

http://www.ti.org/npsprobs1.html
Anonymous

There was a road built by paper companies that wnet through her land she closed it. When I was a kid the road from matagamon to grand pitch was not fit for a 4 wheeler. 5 years ago you could drive most of that section. Now you cant because of gates. Dont claim the paper companies controlled the view how do you think everyone gets into these areas now.

Blinders on?? I come from ‘down south’ 4 or 5 times a year to visit the region. Have been doing so for 40 years. It is stunning, I love it. But most of the sites and views that everyone keeps extolling are not in this propossed park they lie elsewhere.
Anonymous

Doesn’t matter at all…..what those cronies think or say….this will be up to the rest of the state to decide. Ms Quimby has already spent too much time and effort on those ignorant naysayers!

I want to see them – all together – come up with the solution for the welfare state that is now Millinocket. Just one positive idea. They haven’t, they can’t, and they won’t. They’ll all attend the funeral.
Anonymous

What flavor is your Koolaide!
Anonymous

What flavor is your Koolaide!
Anonymous

Actually it does matter…

After the voters say no, will it keep coming back year after year…?

.
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Does anyone actually believe that someone is going to fire the two mills up? Whoever it may be is gonna need some darn deep pockets. Brookfield (Ass)et Management LLC spent the entire time that they ran the mills running them into the ground. There is barely one piece of equipment that doesn’t need repair or total replacement. There is no pulp inventory, no bark/fuel inventory, the rolling stock is worn out and generally unsafe. So people, y’all keep on dreamen’ the dream about the viability of the mills. This area has the possibility of being a premier tourist mecca. Spectacular views, great fishing, outstanding canoeing/kayaking, camping. What we need is some people with little foresight
and vision to maybe try and lure some prospective businesses into the area.

The town leaders (all the towns) need to find a way to promote the area for its recreational possibilties. Maybe with the possibility of luring more investors. I.e.: campgrounds, motels, inns, retaurants, retailers. We could do a lot worse than to realize even a fraction of the money that is spent at the coastal communities or the western part of the state. Almost the entire economy of these areas is based on tourism. We are gonna have to change our attitudes and realize that this will probably be our future.

One more thing: As much as I don’t care for Roxanne Qumby…it is HER land. To do as she sees fit. If you want to blame anyone.. blame it on the greedy S-O-Bs who sold it to her. Didn’t think of that. Didja?
Anonymous

Adirondacker07 in reply to ewv: “You are really off base if you think the the Park Service wants another national park to maintain when they can’t get enough funding to take care of what they already have. And it’s not the Park Service that makes these decisions, anyway, it’s Congress. I suggest you read this article I link to and see the effect pork barrel spending has had on our national park system. You are barking at the wrong people.”

This is not responsive to anything I wrote.

The National Park Service is an empire-expanding bureaucracy. That it can’t take care of what it already has has never discouraged either NPS nor its boosters from expanding. NPS colluded with its pressure groups in the NPCA 1988 National Park System Plan to expand by hundreds of millions of acres, which included plans for five new enormous park takeovers in rural Maine and a strategic plan to establish a new Federal annual entitlement for acquisition, which the pressure groups are still pursuing.

NPS does not object to acquisitions and expansion of its empire because it can’t take care of what it has. First and foremost they want control of the land, eliminating private property rights and the private economy.

The term “park barrel politics” came from abuse of the 1970s expansionism and did not start with Ridenour. NPS “New Area Studies” have been turned out for decades in what used to be called the “Park of the Month Club”. The abuse led to tens of thousands of private property owners being forcibly displaced. The outcry against NPS led to curtailment of acquisition funding and the legal requirement that NPS “studies” not be done without local support. That is why the NPCA park lobby is pushing for an “independent” NPS uncontrolled by Congress and a new entitlement for acquisition.

The well-heeled activists for Federal takeovers in Maine know very well the cynical political process for obtaining Congressional approval for new Federal areas and the steps they have to calculate if they are to get there. The “feasibility study” gambit is one of them, used to build political momentum for their preconceived agenda.
Anonymous

Adirondacker07 in reply to ewv: “You are really off base if you think the the Park Service wants another national park to maintain when they can’t get enough funding to take care of what they already have. And it’s not the Park Service that makes these decisions, anyway, it’s Congress. I suggest you read this article I link to and see the effect pork barrel spending has had on our national park system. You are barking at the wrong people.”

This is not responsive to anything I wrote.

The National Park Service is an empire-expanding bureaucracy. That it can’t take care of what it already has has never discouraged either NPS nor its boosters from expanding. NPS colluded with its pressure groups in the NPCA 1988 National Park System Plan to expand by hundreds of millions of acres, which included plans for five new enormous park takeovers in rural Maine and a strategic plan to establish a new Federal annual entitlement for acquisition, which the pressure groups are still pursuing.

NPS does not object to acquisitions and expansion of its empire because it can’t take care of what it has. First and foremost they want control of the land, eliminating private property rights and the private economy.

The term “park barrel politics” came from abuse of the 1970s expansionism and did not start with Ridenour. NPS “New Area Studies” have been turned out for decades in what used to be called the “Park of the Month Club”. The abuse led to tens of thousands of private property owners being forcibly displaced. The outcry against NPS led to curtailment of acquisition funding and the legal requirement that NPS “studies” not be done without local support. That is why the NPCA park lobby is pushing for an “independent” NPS uncontrolled by Congress and a new entitlement for acquisition.

The well-heeled activists for Federal takeovers in Maine know very well the cynical political process for obtaining Congressional approval for new Federal areas and the steps they have to calculate if they are to get there. The “feasibility study” gambit is one of them, used to build political momentum for their preconceived agenda.
Anonymous

Adirondacker07 in reply to ewv: “You are really off base if you think the the Park Service wants another national park to maintain when they can’t get enough funding to take care of what they already have. And it’s not the Park Service that makes these decisions, anyway, it’s Congress. I suggest you read this article I link to and see the effect pork barrel spending has had on our national park system. You are barking at the wrong people.”

This is not responsive to anything I wrote.

The National Park Service is an empire-expanding bureaucracy. That it can’t take care of what it already has has never discouraged either NPS nor its boosters from expanding. NPS colluded with its pressure groups in the NPCA 1988 National Park System Plan to expand by hundreds of millions of acres, which included plans for five new enormous park takeovers in rural Maine and a strategic plan to establish a new Federal annual entitlement for acquisition, which the pressure groups are still pursuing.

NPS does not object to acquisitions and expansion of its empire because it can’t take care of what it has. First and foremost they want control of the land, eliminating private property rights and the private economy.

The term “park barrel politics” came from abuse of the 1970s expansionism and did not start with Ridenour. NPS “New Area Studies” have been turned out for decades in what used to be called the “Park of the Month Club”. The abuse led to tens of thousands of private property owners being forcibly displaced. The outcry against NPS led to curtailment of acquisition funding and the legal requirement that NPS “studies” not be done without local support. That is why the NPCA park lobby is pushing for an “independent” NPS uncontrolled by Congress and a new entitlement for acquisition.

The well-heeled activists for Federal takeovers in Maine know very well the cynical political process for obtaining Congressional approval for new Federal areas and the steps they have to calculate if they are to get there. The “feasibility study” gambit is one of them, used to build political momentum for their preconceived agenda.
Anonymous

Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land she is tying up does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service. No person has the right to unilaterally make public policy, changing the form of government to Federal control over an area of tens of thousands to millions of acres to eliminate private property rights and the possibility of a free, private economy, which are her goals in trying impose Federal wilderness. Nor does the National Park Service have a “right” to accept such a so-called “gift”: Constitutionally limited government does not act freely by “right” — which concept applies to individuals, not government — and NPS cannot by law start new Federal areas for itself without Congressional authorization.
Anonymous

Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land she is tying up does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service. No person has the right to unilaterally make public policy, changing the form of government to Federal control over an area of tens of thousands to millions of acres to eliminate private property rights and the possibility of a free, private economy, which are her goals in trying impose Federal wilderness. Nor does the National Park Service have a “right” to accept such a so-called “gift”: Constitutionally limited government does not act freely by “right” — which concept applies to individuals, not government — and NPS cannot by law start new Federal areas for itself without Congressional authorization.
Anonymous

medwaymania, The times they are a changing and I would say that if the current Chamber does not make some moves from the ways of the past, they will be replaced be another, say like bringing the old East Millinocket/Medway Chamber back (this is ready to be done as we speak) and/or creating/working on a larger scale say Lincoln to Patten Regional Chamber.
Anonymous

medwaymania, The times they are a changing and I would say that if the current Chamber does not make some moves from the ways of the past, they will be replaced be another, say like bringing the old East Millinocket/Medway Chamber back (this is ready to be done as we speak) and/or creating/working on a larger scale say Lincoln to Patten Regional Chamber.
Anonymous

medwaymania, The times they are a changing and I would say that if the current Chamber does not make some moves from the ways of the past, they will be replaced be another, say like bringing the old East Millinocket/Medway Chamber back (this is ready to be done as we speak) and/or creating/working on a larger scale say Lincoln to Patten Regional Chamber.
Anonymous

medwaymania, The times they are a changing and I would say that if the current Chamber does not make some moves from the ways of the past, they will be replaced be another, say like bringing the old East Millinocket/Medway Chamber back (this is ready to be done as we speak) and/or creating/working on a larger scale say Lincoln to Patten Regional Chamber.
Anonymous

medwaymania, The times they are a changing and I would say that if the current Chamber does not make some moves from the ways of the past, they will be replaced be another, say like bringing the old East Millinocket/Medway Chamber back (this is ready to be done as we speak) and/or creating/working on a larger scale say Lincoln to Patten Regional Chamber.
yowsayowsa1

Definately not tutti- fruity.

You?
yowsayowsa1

Definately not tutti- fruity.

You?
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
yowsayowsa1

And I might add, already there for the viewing.

For free!
Anonymous

Of course she has the right. She can donate it, put in a trust, sell it, whatever she wants. How do you think we got Baxter State Park? What? Did you think it was some gift from a philanthropical paper company? Old Percey begged, borrowed, bought, sold traded and cajoled to get that land put in a trust for the people of the state of Maine. You don’t think Roxanne can’t do the same thing? What private property rights? It’s her private property. She’s already had most of the bridges torn out. So, I guess she’s doing pretty much as she pleases. Just because you think the NPR doesn’t have the “right” to accept a gift doen’t mean that they can’t….or won’t. The NPR comes under the Department of the Interior. I’m sure if they wanted it, they wouldn’t have a lotta trouble getting Congressional approval…or…. Maybe she should donate to the Penobscot nation. I’ll bet they could make some use of it There’s some property rights for ya!.
Anonymous

the abolition of private property rights and the private economy.??

Have you been to Bar Harbor or MDI lately?
Anonymous

You go girl (or guy)!!!
Anonymous

Chip Lamson is a business owner in both Millinocket and East Millinocket. It is the KATAHDIN Chamber of Commerce NOT the Millinocket only Chamber of Commerce.
Anonymous

Quimby’s motives are clear because she has stated them. Quimby and Restore want to get rid of private property rights and a private economy. They want millions of acres taken over by the Federal government as enforced wilderness for “ecosystem restoration”. (That is where their name “Restore” comes from.) This is the diametrical opposite of helping local people or the economy and has been their goal from the beginning. Federally controlled land deemed to be “nationally significant” means that local people don’t count. All the talk now about “the economy” is a more recent, disingenous campaign strategy to sell Federal control.

And yes Quimby and Restore know very well that they need, politically and as a matter of law, the appearance of local support in order to get an NPS controlled “feasibility study” on how it would manage a new Federal area they want, in accordance with the goals of the National System. The political purpose at this stage is build political momentum with an official sanction of a preconceived agenda in the name of a “study”. These people are not scientists and they do not do objective “studies”; they are political power seekers running a sophisticated, well-funded media campaign to steamroll local people and property owners. BDN is helping them as it blows up a naive local Chamber vote in the name of a news story to make it look like a bandwagon taking off, which they are trying to create. There is nothing “practical” about “trusting” these people. Their record and the record of the National Park Service are too clear.
Anonymous

Quimby’s motives are clear because she has stated them. Quimby and Restore want to get rid of private property rights and a private economy. They want millions of acres taken over by the Federal government as enforced wilderness for “ecosystem restoration”. (That is where their name “Restore” comes from.) This is the diametrical opposite of helping local people or the economy and has been their goal from the beginning. Federally controlled land deemed to be “nationally significant” means that local people don’t count. All the talk now about “the economy” is a more recent, disingenous campaign strategy to sell Federal control.

And yes Quimby and Restore know very well that they need, politically and as a matter of law, the appearance of local support in order to get an NPS controlled “feasibility study” on how it would manage a new Federal area they want, in accordance with the goals of the National System. The political purpose at this stage is build political momentum with an official sanction of a preconceived agenda in the name of a “study”. These people are not scientists and they do not do objective “studies”; they are political power seekers running a sophisticated, well-funded media campaign to steamroll local people and property owners. BDN is helping them as it blows up a naive local Chamber vote in the name of a news story to make it look like a bandwagon taking off, which they are trying to create. There is nothing “practical” about “trusting” these people. Their record and the record of the National Park Service are too clear.
Anonymous

Quimby’s motives are clear because she has stated them. Quimby and Restore want to get rid of private property rights and a private economy. They want millions of acres taken over by the Federal government as enforced wilderness for “ecosystem restoration”. (That is where their name “Restore” comes from.) This is the diametrical opposite of helping local people or the economy and has been their goal from the beginning. Federally controlled land deemed to be “nationally significant” means that local people don’t count. All the talk now about “the economy” is a more recent, disingenous campaign strategy to sell Federal control.

And yes Quimby and Restore know very well that they need, politically and as a matter of law, the appearance of local support in order to get an NPS controlled “feasibility study” on how it would manage a new Federal area they want, in accordance with the goals of the National System. The political purpose at this stage is build political momentum with an official sanction of a preconceived agenda in the name of a “study”. These people are not scientists and they do not do objective “studies”; they are political power seekers running a sophisticated, well-funded media campaign to steamroll local people and property owners. BDN is helping them as it blows up a naive local Chamber vote in the name of a news story to make it look like a bandwagon taking off, which they are trying to create. There is nothing “practical” about “trusting” these people. Their record and the record of the National Park Service are too clear.
Anonymous

These are ridiculous statements. Quimby has no authority to make such promises and no intention of keeping them. It is not the way National Parks are run. Property owners are not “stakeholders” sharing control with those who want their land, but have no rights once NPS takes over. NPS takes “input” as an appearance when it is legally required to, and then proceeds the way it wants to to the extent to which it can get away with it. This exercise of raw Federal power supported by the park and viro pressure groups puts a terrible, permanent burden on anyone else, i.e., anyone who is still left. No sane person should willingly surrender his rights to this cynical scheme.
Anonymous

No she has not changed her mind. She says what she has to, making promises she has no authority to make and has no intention of keeping in order to lull people into a false sense of security. Big Park activists have been doing this for decades and do it all over the country. It is nothing new. They want roads closed and motorized vehicles and recreation out for their wilderness “ecosystem restoration”. Once they have the power they want under NPS control their tune changes and there is no going back. It’s too late.
Anonymous

The Federal takeover scheme has not failed for a quarter of a century because of only a “small vocal angry minority” and NPS political “feasibility studies” planning and promotion for control over new areas do not “answer questions” with “factual information”. Enough people have known for too long more than enough about the meaning of NPS control and Restore’s radical politics and its wilderness “eco restoration” “vision” to know that there is nothing more to debate. The continued agitation and pressure politics long ago became harassment worse than stalking.
Anonymous

No National Park near Millinocket. It is amazing how quickly people forget the facts. Does anyone remember how badly the Park Service treated Saddleback Mountain Ski Area on the Appalachian Trail.

The first thing the Park Service will do is declare large areas of the park off limits as Wilderness. That means no snowmobiles and limited access. This will be proposed by Quimby and her crowd. For a good film done by Public Television’s PBS Frontline about how the Park Service takes over an area, go to http://www.landrights.org and watch the PBS Frontline episode called “For The Good Of All.” While there watch the 12 minute film that is also on YouTube called “Big Park”. You should also watch the 12 minute film on YouTube called “In Condemnation, The Cuyahoga Valley”. All of these films can be seen at http://www.landrights.org. The Chamber should revote this issue after watching these films.

Call Chuck Cushman and the American Land Rights Association for more information at (360) 687-3087.
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

The National Park Service will close down the entire area to economic activity. Their record of bring economic benefits to new parks is very poor. Redwood National Park in California is an example. The Park Service and environmental groups promised 2 million visitor use days per year. They got something over 250,000. But they traded away their timber industry. Lots of ghost towns were the result. Contact ccushman@pacifier.com for more details on other parks where promised economic benefits failed to occur.
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

The National Park Service will close down the entire area to economic activity. Their record of bring economic benefits to new parks is very poor. Redwood National Park in California is an example. The Park Service and environmental groups promised 2 million visitor use days per year. They got something over 250,000. But they traded away their timber industry. Lots of ghost towns were the result. Contact ccushman@pacifier.com for more details on other parks where promised economic benefits failed to occur.
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

Boy, if you like infighting and controversy, you’ll love the Park Service. We had to fight them for several years to save Saddleback Mountain Ski Area from the Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conference. Both tried to condemn and kill off the ski area which would have destroyed the largest employer in Rangely, Maine. Just go to http://www.landrights.org for more than you ever wanted to know about how the Park Service is a bad neighbor and continually causes controversy. The states of Minnesota and Alaska finally had to set up state commissions to monitor the Park Service and try to keep their aggressive land use controls in check. Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

The record of the Park Service since the 70′s in bringing in economic activity has been very poor. Gateway communities around Yosemite and Yellowstone have held protests because the Park Service has taken action that destroyed local businesses and kept the visitor count down. There is a fight in Yellowstone every year to keep the snowmobile businesses outside the park from being driven out. It is folks like Miss Quimby and her allies who lead this fight to drive out snowmobiles. If you like snowmobiles, you better not support a park. Snowmobile riders will not spend money if they cannot get to ride in the area.
http://www.landrights.org Chuck Cushman

They voted for a study. The study is to be done by the Park Service. Let’s see. How many of you think that a huge bureaucracy like the Park Service, when asked if it wants more jobs, more money, more power and more land areas to control, think they will come out with a study saying they don’t want the North Woods? Come on. Get serious. This will not be a serious study. It will be a biased study by an agency with an special interest in growing their bureaucracy supported by extreme environmental groups that want to limit your access and use. You are trading away your future based on promises of economic activity that will never come. Your tax base will be lost forever. Your recreation and access will actually be less with the Park Service in charge. The Chamber needs to do more studying and research on this issue. They can start by watching the films at http://www.landrights.org. One of them was done by Public Television’s PBS Frontline called “For the Good Of All”. It would be amazing if the Chamber voted to support a study after watching that film. Chuck Cushman American Land Rights Association
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7ARBFNYJAE23QMOBALXD7FM4W4 gempaint

china owns yellowstone np
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7ARBFNYJAE23QMOBALXD7FM4W4 gempaint

china owns yellowstone np
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7ARBFNYJAE23QMOBALXD7FM4W4 gempaint

i want a printing press and paprys
listenuppeople

I have a old couch I want to donate to you, It’s my right to donate it to you… Roxanne sits on the board of federal parks, she was appointed by Obama… I think she know exactly what she is doing.. to have the federal government regulate the maine woods…
listenuppeople

I have a old couch I want to donate to you, It’s my right to donate it to you… Roxanne sits on the board of federal parks, she was appointed by Obama… I think she know exactly what she is doing.. to have the federal government regulate the maine woods…
Anonymous

SassyJenn in reply to ewv: “the abolition of private property rights and the private economy.?? Have you been to Bar Harbor or MDI lately?”

Have you looked at what happened to the private property owners ensnared within the NPS acquisition boundary? They are threatened with condemnation if they use their own land. Acadia was created with strong arm tactics, including eminent domain, to force sale of the land and put it under Federal control for preservation. The National Park Service did not create Cadillac Mountain and did not create the economy around Bar Harbor, but it sure destroyed the rights of the property owners for the land it took.

Quimby has stated she wants to eliminate private property rights with her Federal takeover. Again, Roxanne Quimby told Yankee Magazine three years ago: “To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”

This does not just affect property owners caught inside National Park boundaries. They also want Greenline land use prohibitions on private property outside the boundaries for “buffer zones” and a lot more. The Northern Forest Lands Study, the Northern Forest Lands Council and the Leahy Skewardship Act were all intended to Greenline private property. Brock Evans, former Audubon VP and Restore board member, is infamous for his “take it all speech” — “all” means 26 million acres across four states in northern New England and New York. They regard Quimby’s 70,000 acres as a “seed” for tens of millions of acres in which they intend to abolish private property rights for wilderness “eco-system restoration”. Wilderness and a human economy are opposites.
Anonymous

SassyJenn in reply to ewv: “the abolition of private property rights and the private economy.?? Have you been to Bar Harbor or MDI lately?”

Have you looked at what happened to the private property owners ensnared within the NPS acquisition boundary? They are threatened with condemnation if they use their own land. Acadia was created with strong arm tactics, including eminent domain, to force sale of the land and put it under Federal control for preservation. The National Park Service did not create Cadillac Mountain and did not create the economy around Bar Harbor, but it sure destroyed the rights of the property owners for the land it took.

Quimby has stated she wants to eliminate private property rights with her Federal takeover. Again, Roxanne Quimby told Yankee Magazine three years ago: “To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”

This does not just affect property owners caught inside National Park boundaries. They also want Greenline land use prohibitions on private property outside the boundaries for “buffer zones” and a lot more. The Northern Forest Lands Study, the Northern Forest Lands Council and the Leahy Skewardship Act were all intended to Greenline private property. Brock Evans, former Audubon VP and Restore board member, is infamous for his “take it all speech” — “all” means 26 million acres across four states in northern New England and New York. They regard Quimby’s 70,000 acres as a “seed” for tens of millions of acres in which they intend to abolish private property rights for wilderness “eco-system restoration”. Wilderness and a human economy are opposites.
Anonymous

SassyJenn in reply to ewv: “the abolition of private property rights and the private economy.?? Have you been to Bar Harbor or MDI lately?”

Have you looked at what happened to the private property owners ensnared within the NPS acquisition boundary? They are threatened with condemnation if they use their own land. Acadia was created with strong arm tactics, including eminent domain, to force sale of the land and put it under Federal control for preservation. The National Park Service did not create Cadillac Mountain and did not create the economy around Bar Harbor, but it sure destroyed the rights of the property owners for the land it took.

Quimby has stated she wants to eliminate private property rights with her Federal takeover. Again, Roxanne Quimby told Yankee Magazine three years ago: “To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”

This does not just affect property owners caught inside National Park boundaries. They also want Greenline land use prohibitions on private property outside the boundaries for “buffer zones” and a lot more. The Northern Forest Lands Study, the Northern Forest Lands Council and the Leahy Skewardship Act were all intended to Greenline private property. Brock Evans, former Audubon VP and Restore board member, is infamous for his “take it all speech” — “all” means 26 million acres across four states in northern New England and New York. They regard Quimby’s 70,000 acres as a “seed” for tens of millions of acres in which they intend to abolish private property rights for wilderness “eco-system restoration”. Wilderness and a human economy are opposites.
Anonymous

No one has a “right” to eliminate private property rights over an entire region of land or to otherwise eliminate representative government within a state by “giving” land to the Federal government, and the Federal government has no “right” to accept it. Constitutionally limited functions of government preclude government agencies from doing whatever they want to by “right”, and that includes collusion with radical activists like Quimby. Quimby has the right to do a lot of reprehensible things privately; that does not include controling and unilaterally changing government itself.

Quimby and her radical supporters are dishonestly fostering the notion that she has a “right” to create a government park takeover allegedly based on her “property rights” as a means to try to befuddle and disarm genuine supporters of property rights, hoping they don’t see through the statist, self-contradictory sophistry.

NPS and its pressure groups are in fact having difficulty getting Congressional authorization. They have failed for a quarter of a century despite the millions of dollars they have spent on it. Their difficulty is why they still trying to steamroll the local people and property owners through an onslaught of disingenuous campaigning and political maneuvering.
Anonymous

Yes, Obama appointed Quimby to the board of the National Parks Foundation, a government entity created by Congress to promote the National Park Service using private money. Quimby is not the quirky “idealist” she wants us to think, she is hobnobbing with a lot of big shots with sophisticated insider schemes and a lot of money in very cynical political manipulation at the highest levels. This is not a game.
Anonymous

Yes, Obama appointed Quimby to the board of the National Parks Foundation, a government entity created by Congress to promote the National Park Service using private money. Quimby is not the quirky “idealist” she wants us to think, she is hobnobbing with a lot of big shots with sophisticated insider schemes and a lot of money in very cynical political manipulation at the highest levels. This is not a game.
Anonymous

howgooditis in reply to CantAfford2Retire: “Our two US Senators have said they don’t have enough information as did Rep. Michaud and Pingree, and that is certainly the case with most of our own legislators who signed on to the pull-a-fast-one resolution Senator Ray orchestrated in the waning hours of the last session.”

Of course they have enough information. Sen. Snowe in particular was in Congress during the first round of “studies” and knows very well why these Federal takeover schemes have been rejected. They have been “studied” and debated to death for a quarter of a century and are only still being pushed because a handful of loud activists have been given a lot of money to promote them. They are worse than stalkers. They always want another “study” to give themselves a platform and in the hope that they can rig the outcome by using NPS to do the so-called “study” on behalf of themselves.

Sen. Snowe has said that the scheme “would cause a region of the state to be governed by decisions dictated from Washington”, and Sen. Collins has said it that “would most likely spell the end to the working forest that has provided thousands of good jobs to the area’s families for generations”. Those are only two of the many reasons to reject the Federal wilderness scheme. Others have surfaced over the record of abuse from the National Park Service elsewhere in the state, from the Saddleback Ski Area to Acadia and the National Natural Landmarks scam downeast.

Sen. Raye did not “orchestrate” a “fast one”. The resolution against the park takeover scheme had previously been entered and waited for more controversial matters to be dealt with. It passed unanimously in the House and with only 3 Senators from Cumberland County in the far south opposing it in the Senate. It is similar to a resolution rejecting the takeover scheme in 2001. Restore doesn’t like the outcome of the vote and wanted to turn it into a circus to promote itself using the legislature and BDN advocacy articles for its platform.
Anonymous

All the elected officials you mentioned are against the park. But what you fail to understand is that it is their personal opiniopns, not the people that they represent. Our congressional delegation have all said they do not have enough information. The only thing they to go on is what the town council and the town manager tells them, and most of them are morons.
Anonymous

The Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce has well over 100 members. They are taking their stand based on what the majority of their members have stated. They really have no choice but to go along with the feasability study.
Anonymous

My question Sassy is what does this specific 70,000 acres have that is so notable? What does it have that makes it a place of significance that would deserve NP status. I have asked this many times and no one ever answers that. I give you an opputunity to list all the notable places, vista’s, etc. that this specific 70,000 acres has.

If the goal is to protect give the land to Baxter and the 40 Million to the Khatahdin Region Chamber for a marketing campaign. But that isnt the goal is it? It is to create a much larger park from this ‘small’ seed . As I have said before that idea may be good it may be bad. But lets talk about what this is really about.
Anonymous

My question Sassy is what does this specific 70,000 acres have that is so notable? What does it have that makes it a place of significance that would deserve NP status. I have asked this many times and no one ever answers that. I give you an opputunity to list all the notable places, vista’s, etc. that this specific 70,000 acres has.

If the goal is to protect give the land to Baxter and the 40 Million to the Khatahdin Region Chamber for a marketing campaign. But that isnt the goal is it? It is to create a much larger park from this ‘small’ seed . As I have said before that idea may be good it may be bad. But lets talk about what this is really about.
Anonymous

Yeah right, their morons, “and yet” they are the elected “elected” officials, both Democrat and Republican that don’t want this.

This is not a party issue, but rather a conservative versus liberal thing,,,,, and these morons and the people they represent “are the majority” and “will” stop this from happening— bank on it..!

.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

Yes, howgooditis. It is like committing suicide after the loss of a loved one. You want so bad to be with the one you lost you take your own life to be with them in death.
Anonymous

They did not trade away their paper industy they adapted to the changing times and global economy.
Anonymous

They did not trade away their paper industy they adapted to the changing times and global economy.
Anonymous

Got that right!
Anonymous

The region needs to diversify its economy. When the sale of the mill is announced I hope everyone will remember that.
Anonymous

Yes you have the right to donate it to me. I also have the right not to accept it. The same goes for Qwimby’s land. She has the right to do whatever she wants with it. We don’t have to accep it. We don’t have to like it. To reiterate: She can donate it, sell it, clear cut it, put in a resort, put in a nudist camp, whatever. She can also stop anyone from going onto it. As I previously stated: She’s already tearing the bridges out on the Wassataquoik Road.
Anonymous

Yes you have the right to donate it to me. I also have the right not to accept it. The same goes for Qwimby’s land. She has the right to do whatever she wants with it. We don’t have to accep it. We don’t have to like it. To reiterate: She can donate it, sell it, clear cut it, put in a resort, put in a nudist camp, whatever. She can also stop anyone from going onto it. As I previously stated: She’s already tearing the bridges out on the Wassataquoik Road.
Anonymous

Yes you have the right to donate it to me. I also have the right not to accept it. The same goes for Qwimby’s land. She has the right to do whatever she wants with it. We don’t have to accep it. We don’t have to like it. To reiterate: She can donate it, sell it, clear cut it, put in a resort, put in a nudist camp, whatever. She can also stop anyone from going onto it. As I previously stated: She’s already tearing the bridges out on the Wassataquoik Road.
Anonymous

Yes you have the right to donate it to me. I also have the right not to accept it. The same goes for Qwimby’s land. She has the right to do whatever she wants with it. We don’t have to accep it. We don’t have to like it. To reiterate: She can donate it, sell it, clear cut it, put in a resort, put in a nudist camp, whatever. She can also stop anyone from going onto it. As I previously stated: She’s already tearing the bridges out on the Wassataquoik Road.
Anonymous

She pretty much eliminated many so called “rights” when she purchased the land in question. We no longer have the “right” to hunt the area, use our ATV’s in the area, we can’t get to many places without walking…..or in some cases wading.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

How does the Park Service compare to the international corporatist’s record in the region ?

I don’t get all you folks whose anger is directed at the future,
not at the those that have already distroyed your dreams and your homeland’s economy .

You are being made into the service economy that you endorsed everytime you voted Red,
since Reagan.
You asked for it.
Deny that.
Anonymous

What do you expect as a service worker in a grobalized service economy ?
Anonymous

“Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land… does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service.”

Who’s the socialist, here ?

ROTFLOL
Anonymous

“Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land… does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service.”

Who’s the socialist, here ?

ROTFLOL
Anonymous

“Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land… does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service.”

Who’s the socialist, here ?

ROTFLOL
Anonymous

“Roxanne Quimby’s ownership of the land… does not give her the right to turn it over to the National Park Service.”

??? Who’s being the socialist, here ?

ROTFLOL
Anonymous

Seems to me this is the problem. People pointing fingers and blaming everybody else but themselve for their plight.
Anonymous

Seems to me this is the problem. People pointing fingers and blaming everybody else but themselve for their plight.
listenuppeople

Lets not accept it and make sure she pays her fair share of taxes on it… We don’t need any additions park land taken of the tax rolls, Let her keep her land.. She once stated that she hates Maine and that the people are stupid and would never live or do business here in the state.. I remember well what was said when she moved her business out of state. . I guess money changes everything…
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

Not a socialist, just a taxpayer.

What if I wanted to turn over 20 acres of my land to become a mini national park (get out of paying taxes), create 3 or 4 jobs and have to depend on tax dollars for its annual upkeep,,,, just so that I can immortalize my contribution and pay for my descendants to become some kind of Maine aristocracy.

.
Anonymous

your right, its her right, but its not her right to make it into a national park…!
Anonymous

You can start by voting,,,, but it seems that most voted for the current town council,,,, but then again,,, like most of the Quimby minion, like to describe Millinocket as a bunch of morons.

Got some news— the morons are about to vote “no”

.
Anonymous

Your name says it all…
Our mills “will” come back “and” other non-wood manufacturing “is” already being developed…!
Anonymous

Your name says it all…
Our mills “will” come back “and” other non-wood manufacturing “is” already being developed…!
Anonymous

Are you saying Baldacci & Michaud had nothing to do with the demise of Northern Maine…? What are you high-
Not from around here-
Or just soo brainwashed thatyou believe that Bush planned this out years ago…?

.
Anonymous

Are you saying Baldacci & Michaud had nothing to do with the demise of Northern Maine…? What are you high-
Not from around here-
Or just soo brainwashed thatyou believe that Bush planned this out years ago…?

.
Anonymous

It might as well be a national park now. Considering all of the rules and regulations she has imposed on the (her) land.
Anonymous

It might as well be a national park now. Considering all of the rules and regulations she has imposed on the (her) land.
Anonymous

It might as well be a national park now. Considering all of the rules and regulations she has imposed on the (her) land.
Anonymous

It might as well be a national park now. Considering all of the rules and regulations she has imposed on the (her) land.
Anonymous

It might as well be a national park now. Considering all of the rules and regulations she has imposed on the (her) land.
Anonymous

Actually: all that she has to do is STOP paying the taxes on the land and then the State can foreclose on it
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Yeah, but at least for now we are not paying for her taxes…
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

Do you mean like say…the man who donated the land for Baxter State Park? Hmmmmm, now what was his name? I’ve seemed to have forgotten it.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

There is a great deal of difference between Baxter and Quimby, the least of which the difference between a State Park and a National Park. If Roxanne “really wanted to do an unselfish act” why not donate the land to the Baxter State Park, I am sure that the added land could bear her name.

.
Anonymous

Ah, there’s the rub. I’d be willing to bet that her taxes are not all that exhorbitant. With her $$$ she probably doesn’t mind paying them. The bottom line with her, just like a large number of politicians, she wants a legacy. Pure and simple. It’s not about her philanthropy. It’s about her. Call it ego, narcissism, a need to be remembered. “Look at me. Look at the good I’ve done!” ” I’ve given all of this to the people of Maine.” Maybe she’s trying to atone for the way she treated her old partner…or to the fact that she pulled her business out of Maine. I dunno. But, whatever the reason, I’m for anything that’ll perk up the economy in the Katahdin region.
Anonymous

Ah, there’s the rub. I’d be willing to bet that her taxes are not all that exhorbitant. With her $$$ she probably doesn’t mind paying them. The bottom line with her, just like a large number of politicians, she wants a legacy. Pure and simple. It’s not about her philanthropy. It’s about her. Call it ego, narcissism, a need to be remembered. “Look at me. Look at the good I’ve done!” ” I’ve given all of this to the people of Maine.” Maybe she’s trying to atone for the way she treated her old partner…or to the fact that she pulled her business out of Maine. I dunno. But, whatever the reason, I’m for anything that’ll perk up the economy in the Katahdin region.
Anonymous

Now you’re saying we should put the extra burdon onto the State. Either way, it’s going to cost someone something. No free lunches.
Anonymous

That would be really nice and great. When can we expect this to happen?
Anonymous

That would be really nice and great. When can we expect this to happen?
Anonymous

That would be really nice and great. When can we expect this to happen?
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

We also can’t afford to sell our Real Estate, we can’t afford drive to a town with decent stores and a variety of business either. We can’t afford much at all here in Millinocket.
Anonymous

and the other people will vote yes, ha!
Anonymous

and the other people will vote yes, ha!