March 22, 2019
Letters Latest News | Swanville Shooting | Bangor Metro | Amy Vachon | Today's Paper

Monday, Feb. 25, 2019: Wall an environmental disaster, no to transmission line, sensible answers?

Wall an environmental disaster

Thanks to Joan Ellis for background explaining waves of Central American families seeking safety north of the border in her Feb. 21 OpEd.

In addition to the hardship on people imposed by our immigration policy, which has callously separated many hundreds of children from their parents, the massive wall pushed by President Donald Trump would have a disastrous effect on the environment.

According a National Geographic article, construction of a border wall would bisect the geographic range of 1,506 native animals and plants, including 62 species that are listed as critically endangered. It could exacerbate flooding, acting as a dam during rainy season flash floods, which occurred in Arizona after 700 miles of fencing were built during the George W. Bush administration.

Trump’s “beautiful” wall would disrupt seasonal migration and affect access to water, fragmenting and shrinking animal populations, and trapping wildlife from escaping fires, floods and heat waves.

Unfortunately construction of the wall does not have to meet environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, because the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, waives laws that interfere with border barrier construction. So let’s choose not to build it!

Christina Diebold


No to transmission line

Environment Maine is against CMP’s proposed 145-mile long transmission line, which would require clear cutting areas of the largest temperate forest in North America, the North Woods.

This is a still bad deal for Maine, despite Governor Mills signed support, and would permanently scar our land. No amount of money can make up for that.

The Maine North Woods is a privately owned working and recreational forest that has the perfect balance between the forest industry, recreation, and wildlife. Clear cutting for the corridor would remove all trees and underbrush, making a 53-mile, 300-foot wide path, permanently fragmenting the North Woods, destroying important habitats, and dividing animal populations such as the largest moose population in the lower 48 states.

Excessive sediment from site clearing can damage the gills of fish. We have 97 percent of the nations wild brook trout ponds and the last naturally reproducing landlocked salmon located in northwest Maine. We need to protect these animals by protecting the habitat they survive in.

This corridor will permanently scar the North Woods, risk the wildlife we care about, and threaten the balance we’ve benefited from for centuries. That is why Environment Maine urges Mainers to say “No!”

Carissa Maurin

Environment Maine State Director


Sensible answers?

Trying to understand points of view that oppose mine leads to questions about their logic. Such as, if the pro-life folks really wanted to stop abortion, wouldn’t they hand out condoms or information about birth control methods at every demonstration? How about working to keep contraception in health care plans? What about funding contraception for women who can’t afford it? I’m open to sensible answers.

A congressional GOP working group on women’s health consisted entirely of men. Republicans have supported policies that would limit access to birth control. How can someone claim a desire to prevent abortion while working against birth control?

Even when one’s religion is the rationale to be against abortion and birth control, is it justifiable to block others of different beliefs? If we’re to come together as citizens to solve issues, we need to use common sense. Any argument against abortion that does not support a woman who chooses birth control is a blatant attack on women’s rights. Women want to fulfill their own lives, including bearing as many or as few children as they choose.

Leslie Woods



Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

You may also like