WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 162
  1. #1
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default Another Maine National Park?

    Roxanne Quimby, founder of "Burts Bees," wants to donate 70,000 acres located between Baxter State Paark and the East Branch of the Penobscot River to the National Park Service.

    If accepted, the new park would be twice the size of Acadia National Park, and almost twice the size of the corridor that protects the Appalachian Trail in Maine, the only other National Park lands in the state.

    You can read the details at:

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/anot...chterm=quimby#

    Around a decade ago, Quimby sold 80 percent interest in Burts Bees to investors, and four years ago her remaining 20% interest, for a total of $350 million. She has purchased around 100,000 acres of forest land in Maine since selling her business interests.

    Quimby came to Maine as part of the 70s back to the land movement. She and her boy friend built their plumbing-less home on 30 acres in central Maine. She founded Burts Bees in 1985 as a crafts project, selling bees wax candles and lip balm at county fairs. As the business prospered she moved it to the south (Georgia I think).

    But after the sales she moved to Portland Maine where charitable foundations she founded, purchased lands, supported the arts. and groups such as the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.

  2. #2
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    That is a great donation to protect the land forever, especially in the location of the land she will donate.
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-29-2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    69
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Don't under estimate the off road vehicle hunting crowd. The original plan was to have Big Cypress Reserve's 720,000 acres made a National Park or part of Everglades National Park after the land was acquired. Heavy pressure from the ORV and hunting lobby (all of my family hunts by the way) changed those plans.
    "Big Cypress National Preserve was one of the first national preserves within the National Park System. As a preserve, Big Cypress manages for a broader range of recreational activities, including hunting and off-road vehicle access."
    It is that off road use that is now doing the most damage to the area and even long time hunters are wishing for more control of access.

    The southern terminus of the Florida Trail begins here and the battle is constant to keep ORV's off of the trail corridor.
    The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
    You never know which one is talking.

  4. #4
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    WingedMonkey, I was in South Fla. this past winter and I can say that I there were numerous booths set up by hunters/off roaders at Big Cyrpress NF who wanted to end the National Preserve! Why accommodate these folks? Whats next, building golf courses on National Forest land?
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  5. #5
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    This is a wonderful opportunity to protect some important parts of the Maine wildlands. But it will not be an easy fight. Roxanne has made some powerful enemies among the motorized crowd. And opponents of public land have taken over the Maine Legislature and governor's office.

    But she is also a savy business woman, who managed to earn $350 million against great odds. She is on the board of a national parks support organization, which gives her an in with the national parks people in Washington.

    She seems also to have won the respect, if not the support, of the state's largest hunting and fishing organization.

  6. #6
    Registered User JF2CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-29-2007
    Location
    SouthCentral, Pa
    Age
    39
    Posts
    92

    Default

    I remember hearing rumors of "North Woods NP" incorporating Baxter and additional lands. Is this the same deal?
    Not all those who wander are lost.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-29-2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    69
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by double d View Post
    WingedMonkey, I was in South Fla. this past winter and I can say that I there were numerous booths set up by hunters/off roaders at Big Cyrpress NF who wanted to end the National Preserve! Why accommodate these folks? Whats next, building golf courses on National Forest land?

    HOBE SOUND—
    Someday you might be able to strap the kayak to the top of the car, the bicycle to the rack on back, then throw the golf clubs inside the back with the camping gear, all for a trip to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.

    State Rep. Pat Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, filed a bill on Friday that would allow at least five Jack Nicklaus-designed golf courses to be built on state park land, including one capable of hosting a U.S. Open within the 61-year-old, 11,500-acre park in southern Martin County named for a shipwrecked Quaker merchant.

    House Bill 1239, with the companion bill Senate Bill 1846 sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, requires the construction of an 18-hole or more public golf course in the parks, "free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements," as a means to enhance tourism and create jobs.

    Rooney said Nicklaus, a North Palm Beach resident, met with Gov. Rick Scott just over a month ago to brainstorm ways to improve the economy, and later approached the Rooney family.

    "We're trying to do something for tourism that's going to add some jobs, bring in some construction, and hopefully be a tourism draw," said Rooney, the chairman of the Palm Beach County Golf Association. "I'm sure [Nicklaus] would work with as many environmental groups as possible to ensure the environmental elements there aren't compromised."

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,6975662.story

    This is the closest Florida State park to me, and has a connector to the Florida Trail via the planned Ocean to Lake Trail.
    It should be noted that the "Ronney Family" of the Tea Party clan, owns the local Dog Track/Poker concession and the Pittsburg Steelers. Also his brother is a member of the U.S. House from here.

    Sorry didn't mean to get of topic here.
    The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
    You never know which one is talking.

  8. #8
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JF2CBR View Post
    I remember hearing rumors of "North Woods NP" incorporating Baxter and additional lands. Is this the same deal?
    No. A plan similar to what you remember was floated in the 1930's but was rejected by Gov. Baxter, who was buying what is now Baxter State Park bit by bit and giving it to the state.

    Twenty years or so ago a group that calls itself "Restore The North Woods," proposed a 3 million acre "Maine woods national park," that excluded Baxter. That effort is still floating about. Roxanne Quimby's proposal incorporates 70,000 acres of that proposal. And, if created, seems likely to boost interest in Restore's proposal.

    But I doubt if a 3 million acre Maine Woods National Park is likely to happen anytime soon in the current political and budgetary climate, if ever.

  9. #9
    Digger takethisbread's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,062
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    i guess i am a cynic.

    Aside i must admit that Baxter is National Park worthy and the Maine woods are the most magnificent part of The AT and a true national treasure.

    but at the same time i cant help but look at the motivation of ms Quimby. Perhaps, with recent property assesments more in line with market values, the tax burden becomes an issue.

    Secondly, are the taxpayers in a position to lose the tax revenue on 70,000 acres of land? their rights must be considered, as the extra burden by lost revenues will fall upon those residents.

    i suppose everything is as philanthropic as it seems, but a larger National Park in Maine that includes Baxter makes sense. If it doesnt, then i ask what is the point?
    YOUTUBE: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCMDkRcGP1yP20SOD-oiSGcQ
    Instagram: DIGGER_PCT_2016
    twitter: @takethisbread
    AT 2x, LT, JMT, CT, Camino, Ireland Coast to Coast, HWT, WT, NET, NST, PCT

  10. #10
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by takethisbread View Post
    i guess i am a cynic.

    Aside i must admit that Baxter is National Park worthy and the Maine woods are the most magnificent part of The AT and a true national treasure.

    but at the same time i cant help but look at the motivation of ms Quimby. Perhaps, with recent property assesments more in line with market values, the tax burden becomes an issue.

    Secondly, are the taxpayers in a position to lose the tax revenue on 70,000 acres of land? their rights must be considered, as the extra burden by lost revenues will fall upon those residents.

    i suppose everything is as philanthropic as it seems, but a larger National Park in Maine that includes Baxter makes sense. If it doesnt, then i ask what is the point?
    Baxter is well run by the state and doesn't cost taxpayers anything. The good governor when he died left his remaining legacy to his park, the income from which, along with fees, pays the entire cost.

    The point of Roxanne's proposal is that it protects 70,000 acres of land that had she not purchased it would by now ring the park with condos and other development.

    She didn't buy the 70,000 acres for development. It was always scheduled for protection. Her plan is to turn it over to the federal government on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National park service five years from now.

    Taxes truly have nothing to do with her plans. She's given away millions of dollars since getting out of Burt's Bees. Her proposed gift is another part of the legacy she hopes to leave behind when her time on this earth ends.

    Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-29-2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    69
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."
    I notice in the article that some still consider her an outsider because she wasn't born there.
    As if all the people that hunt, snowmobile, ORV, and fish in Maine were born in Maine, or even live there.
    And the big developers buying used up pulp paper forest lands certainly are not local.
    The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
    You never know which one is talking.

  12. #12
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    7,145
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person.
    Thanks for the update, Weary.

    I always knew making money was hard, but could never have imagined how difficult it could be to give it away for others to enjoy. She really must be a remarkable individual indeed for staying true to her vision in Maine.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-26-2007
    Location
    maine
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,964
    Images
    35

    Default

    If anyone thinks the Baxter people would allow themselves to be absorbed into a NP, they are naive. Ms. Quimby is ahead of her time.

    Maybe next century.

  14. #14
    Digger takethisbread's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,062
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    Baxter is well run by the state and doesn't cost taxpayers anything. The good governor when he died left his remaining legacy to his park, the income from which, along with fees, pays the entire cost.

    The point of Roxanne's proposal is that it protects 70,000 acres of land that had she not purchased it would by now ring the park with condos and other development.

    She didn't buy the 70,000 acres for development. It was always scheduled for protection. Her plan is to turn it over to the federal government on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National park service five years from now.

    Taxes truly have nothing to do with her plans. She's given away millions of dollars since getting out of Burt's Bees. Her proposed gift is another part of the legacy she hopes to leave behind when her time on this earth ends.

    Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."
    Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.

    While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.

    Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
    YOUTUBE: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCMDkRcGP1yP20SOD-oiSGcQ
    Instagram: DIGGER_PCT_2016
    twitter: @takethisbread
    AT 2x, LT, JMT, CT, Camino, Ireland Coast to Coast, HWT, WT, NET, NST, PCT

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-29-2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    69
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.
    Can you think of a National Park we don't need and should sell and make back into private land?
    The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
    You never know which one is talking.

  16. #16
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by takethisbread View Post
    Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.

    While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.

    Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
    Two thoughts. Over the years, my wife and I have visited most of the National Parks. A couple of years ago my wife and I spent six weeks exploring all of the northern tier of National Parks, from Acadia to Olympic.

    My conclusion from all these park visits was that the proposed: Maine Woods National Park would be the equal to or greater than all.

    As for the right of the public decide. Nearly a dozen referendums over the past many years have approved bond issues for the "Land for Maine's Future" program by lopsided margins. The law doesn't allow an up or down referendum vote on this particular proposal, as I understand it. But I have no doubt of the outcome should such a vote be held. People we elect to the Legislature, however oppose a park.

    That's a mystery I still haven't resolved. But I suspect the legislature, unlike the public, tends to be subject to the pressure from lobbyists with reelection caSH to donate.

  17. #17
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WingedMonkey View Post
    HOBE SOUND—
    Someday you might be able to strap the kayak to the top of the car, the bicycle to the rack on back, then throw the golf clubs inside the back with the camping gear, all for a trip to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.

    State Rep. Pat Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, filed a bill on Friday that would allow at least five Jack Nicklaus-designed golf courses to be built on state park land, including one capable of hosting a U.S. Open within the 61-year-old, 11,500-acre park in southern Martin County named for a shipwrecked Quaker merchant.

    House Bill 1239, with the companion bill Senate Bill 1846 sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, requires the construction of an 18-hole or more public golf course in the parks, "free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements," as a means to enhance tourism and create jobs.

    Rooney said Nicklaus, a North Palm Beach resident, met with Gov. Rick Scott just over a month ago to brainstorm ways to improve the economy, and later approached the Rooney family.

    "We're trying to do something for tourism that's going to add some jobs, bring in some construction, and hopefully be a tourism draw," said Rooney, the chairman of the Palm Beach County Golf Association. "I'm sure [Nicklaus] would work with as many environmental groups as possible to ensure the environmental elements there aren't compromised."

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,6975662.story

    This is the closest Florida State park to me, and has a connector to the Florida Trail via the planned Ocean to Lake Trail.
    It should be noted that the "Ronney Family" of the Tea Party clan, owns the local Dog Track/Poker concession and the Pittsburg Steelers. Also his brother is a member of the U.S. House from here.

    Sorry didn't mean to get of topic here.
    wow, thanks for the update!
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  18. #18
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by takethisbread View Post
    Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.

    While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.

    Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
    by development, you mean more people, more infrastructure (schools, roads, waste management, etc.), means more taxes to support those local/state government jobs-buildings, so by creating a national park, aren't we in reality saving alot of money by not developing the land and keeping it in its true form (wilderness)?
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  19. #19
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    These are not easily resolved issues. Development in fact brings jobs. Mostly short term jobs. It takes people to build condos. summer camps, luxury resorts, whatever.

    But those jobs are shortlived. That's my worry, that we as a society are willing to give up long term goals, for short term jobs.

  20. #20

    Default

    You know, several of our current National Parks were initiallly opposed by some of the local populations. Those same populations latter were glad they lost the fight when the parks brought in tourism dollars.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •