Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research is warning sportsmen that the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), “would do more to threaten the cherished pastimes of hunters, fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts than it would to ensure the cleanliness of our nation’s water.”

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest – some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation – a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

On Saturday of last week the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife issued a press release announcing plans to team up with the Maine Office of Tourism to promote fishing. The press release says that with the brand new fishing section of the Maine Office of Tourism website, visitors to that site will be able to find places to fish all over the state.

The Fishing Feature brings one of the state’s most popular pastimes to the front of a Web site that draws more than a million people annually to plan their Maine vacation. Its extensive information makes it easier for tourists to join Mainers on our lakes and rivers, according to Commissioner Roland “Dan” Martin of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

I have known since at least last summer that the MOT was in the midst of a remake of their website as I was contacted about supplying some information that the web designers could use to help build the site. When I received a copy of the press release from the MDIFW, I assumed the new website must be completed, so I went to the site to have a look. What I found was actually shocking!

I have been involved enough in web design and running Internet businesses complete with marketing and promotion and so I want to give MOT the benefit of the doubt that the web site is not yet complete, however, there seems to be some obvious omissions that will leave visitors lacking in good valuable information in order to “plan their vacations” as the site directs. If the site is incomplete, then perhaps it is a bit premature to announce plans and begin a marketing campaign designed to drive traffic to the site.

My questions have to be, who at MOT has approved the content, or lack thereof, of the fishing section of the MOT website? Who is in charge of deciding what information gets highlighted and which rivers, lakes and streams get omitted from the list? Which fish species get promoted the hardest and why and which ones never get a mention?

I don’t think I can blame the designers of the website. Their job basically is to put together a site that is user friendly and easy to navigate. Even though they may have been given the task of collecting some or even most of the information they wanted to put on the site, someone at MOT has to make the final decisions as to what makes the cut that the million or so visitors to the web site will see.

What left me in shock was the fact that for all intent and purposes the Androscoggin River, namely the upper reaches affectionately called the Upper Andro, barely gets a mention. It’s not listed anywhere in “River Country” where much is said about the Kennebec. A look over to “Fishing Regions” following links to the eight geographical regions of the state, I also came up empty. The Upper Androscoggin is geographically located in the “Lakes and Mountains” regions but not a mention.

I had to actually go to the “Family Fishing” section and way down at the bottom of the page under, “What Else Can You Catch in Maine”, there is a hyperlinked “Androscoggin” listed there. Near the top of the page you can find where to fish for brook trout, landlocked salmon and lake trout, yet not a mention of the river.

The Upper Andro has brook trout, it also has brown trout, rainbow trout and smallmouth bass. It’s one of the three major rivers in the state of Maine – Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin. It’s a river, it’s located in the Lakes and Mountains region of Maine and all it gets is a tiny little link buried deep into the “Family Fishing” section?

This isn’t sour grapes people. The Upper Andro is considered by many to possess some of the finest fishing in the state of Maine today. Efforts by many over the years has brought the river to a point today where the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has discussed designating some or all of the Upper Andro trophy fishing, catch and release and they have considered seriously marketing this river as a premier destination fishing location. All this and no mention on the MOT website.

Let’s not also forget that just last year, Steven Day of Maine, landed a state record rainbow trout out of this part of the river and it doesn’t deserve a highlight? What’s wrong? Who’s in charge? What is somebody thinking? or not?

Presently there are private efforts underway to promote the Upper Androscoggin as a place to come and fish. The Upper Andro Anglers Alliance has worked feverishly over the past couple of years to promote the river. I might add this promotion is all being done with private sector money. The river is promoted by this group at sporting trade shows, on brochures, advertising, mailings and the UAAA hosts an annual Free Family Fishing Festival and a Two Fly Contest bringing people to the area to enjoy and discover the great fishing the river and surrounding area offers. And still, the river gets nary a mention.

Maybe this is the problem. Maybe if those looking to promote the river sucked off the resources of “free” money from the Fish and Game and Office of Tourism, they would have gotten a mention on the website.

We can’t blame it on not being connected and not knowing the right people…..or can we? Robin Zinchuk, Executive Director of the Bethel Chamber of Commerce, a town that is a hub of activity on the river and is promoted by the Chamber, also sits on the commission of the Maine Tourism Association. Obviously her “connections” didn’t get the river a mention, not even a picture.

The people in this region should be upset. Tax dollars and a lot of them, have been spent to build this website that is supposed to be a tool to help promote fishing in the state. Pull out a map of Maine and look at the three big rivers – Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin. Take in their valleys and watersheds and look at the geographical territory this encompasses. A lot of people are affected by these three rivers and yet, MOT has chosen to not even feature the river on their website, a kick in the guts of those living in the area and promoting this natural resource.

I have yet to take the time to go through every part of the fishing section and see what other key rivers, lakes, streams and ponds got omitted. I know not every body of water that provides fishing can be featured but to overlook this magnificent, major river to Maine, that has some of the best fishing anywhere, is easily accessible and boasts providing a state record rainbow trout, is unacceptable.

I contacted Wende Gray of Bethel. Wende owns Gray Marketing, is very much involved in Maine outdoor events and is very well connected. She works tirelessly with the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance, the Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce, along with a host of other entities and promotions. It would be a severe understatement to say that Wende was disappointed with the results on that website. Here are a couple of her comments.

Tom-I can’t tell you how slighted I feel………………….I went on line to vistimaine.com about 10 days ago to see the new segment on fishing. By the time I had checked out everything I was livid.

……..despite the fact that we are the only association promoting Maine fishing from the perspective of tourism versus recreation, who belongs to the Maine Tourism Assoc. hosts events, has a website, brochure, etc. etc etc.

Wende is in the process of voicing her opposition to the lack of content on the website. Let’s hope that it gets changed as it will benefit all of Maine and especially those looking for a great place to get away for a fishing adventure.

Tom Remington

Today is Super Tuesday and if you live in one of those states where elections are taking place, I urge you to get up out of your chair, run to the window and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m going to go vote!” – or something like that.

Now is the time to act. Go to the polls and vote. It doesn’t hurt at all.

Tom Remington

Today is the Florida primary election. The polls in my home town opened at 7 a.m. and I was there at about 8:15 while out doing errands. Up until about 6 o’clock last evening, I still had not made up my mind who I was going to vote for. Getting away from my computer and all the other distractions, I began doing some hard thinking and reached a decision.

I would like to share that process with you and so I decided that this Thursday, 3 p.m., during my weekly Skinny Moose Radio program, Open Air with Tom Remington, I am going to tell you who I voted for and why. I might surprise you.

Tom Remington

I have written some here at the Black Bear Blog and Blogging the Maine Outdoors about National Heritage Areas. Just last week, I wrote an article at Blogging the Maine Outdoors about a summit which also took place last week at the Sunday River Ski Resort. That summit was to discuss the economic impact of trails to Maine’s economy.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci has been pushing for more promotion of Maine’s natural resources and appears to be an advocate for the establishment of more “preserved” lands including National Heritage Areas. Part of this summit at Sunday River was to discuss the prospects of mapping and inventorying lands and waterways in order to protect them. Included in that process was to tap into federal money available to protect these lands through National Heritage Areas.

It is my belief that very few people are even aware of what a National Heritage Area is, say nothing about how they might think how it could benefit them or more particularly the landowner and the local economy.

In the January 28th, 2008 issue of National Review Magazine, John J. Miller, National Political Reporter, writes about National Heritage Areas. One of the things that Miller brings to our attention is the fact that sometimes our land is yanked out from underneath us without our knowledge, all for the good of conservation and preservation.

He cites the example in Arizona of a new National Heritage Area, Yuma Crossing, in which landowner Lee Ott, was completely unaware that his land had been designated as part of it until one day he spotted surveyors on his land. In Ott’s effort to fight back against the encroachment and thievery of his land, 600 people attended a meeting to learn more about what was taking place around them.

“About 600 people came to our meeting,” says Harold Maxwell, a farm-equipment distributor. “When I asked for a show of hands from those who knew they were in the NHA, only one hand went up.”

Evidently, this is part of how the designation of lands for National Heritage Areas takes place. What’s to hide anyway?

Miller describes what National Heritage Areas are in terms most of us should be able to understand.

National Heritage Areas are like a poor man’s National Park­ they aren’t actually owned by the federal government, but they’re zoned by it. Instead of employing Park Rangers in stiff-brimmed hats, they’re often administered by liberal groups that want to weaken the property rights of the people who hold a piece of land within or even near NHA boundaries. This is generally done in the name of historic preservation and environmental conservation.

Miller also describes NHA as a very popular thing these days particularly because they are a means of gaining huge sums of money through earmarks and is a wonderful tool for those bent on controlling and limiting our land-use rights.

Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research, says that NHAs become federal zoning laws that are enforced by private preservationist groups.

The rules governing NHAs vary from place to place, but they tend to have a few features in common. One important element is the involvement of a “management entity” that works in conjunction with the Park Service to come up with a plan. In the case of one NHA, this means creating an “inventory” of properties of “national historic significance” that it wants “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.”

Miller says that those who support NHAs, even though they claim they are not in the business of buying or regulating real estate, the end result does in fact do that. His claims are that supporters work with local government to enforce and create restrictive land ordinances that fall in line with plans for conserving and preserving “inventoried” and “mapped out” lands.

He gives an example of how that is done.

They do this by dangling the prospect of federal largesse in front of potential recipients. West Virginia’s Wheeling NHA, which is basically a downtown preservation project, makes this explicit, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Chumley and Ron Utt. Its management plan calls for new zoning ordinances and the acquisition of private property. And how will it achieve these goals? As Chumley and Utt write, “Major funding to support the activities . . . and the recommendations of this plan will be coming from the National Park Service.” In the year prior to its most recent available tax filing, the Wheeling NHA received more than $2.5 million in government contributions and not a dime from private sources.

Is this what we want in our own back yards? As we have now seen, these operations sneak about seeking people’s land to devour and control, even without the knowledge of the landowner. We have also been shown that you don’t even have to own land within a NHA, only to be “near” one.

While most of us favor conservation and in some cases we would like to see certain parcels of land protected, I want to believe that very few of us want these “Management Entities” empowered and funded by the federal government taking away our land and or limiting our uses for the sake of creating these National Heritage Areas.

As hunters, fishermen and outdoor sportsmen, our future depends on our ability to access the outdoors. We can’t blindly plunder into programs like this without knowing the facts. We just might end up “giving away the farm” as they say, without a clue as to what is really going to happen.

Severe limits and restrictions on lands and land use, including access to our waterways, will destroy our recreational opportunities and long time heritage of our love for the outdoors. Our property rights and those of our neighbors have to be protected from such programs.

We have to consider this effort as one that can easily be used by the incrementalists to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. With local governments strong armed into creating restrictive land use, you know only the elite special interest groups will ensure their access while restricting or eliminating many others.

Get involved in what’s going on in your community and keep your eyes on your own land to make sure it isn’t being snatched away.

Tom Remington

Yesterday, I attempted my first ever live broadcast of Open Air With Tom Remington. I didn’t think it was going to happen for most of the morning as it seemed I was having one technical failure after another but I finally pulled it off……as it was.

The show is a bit different than other shows in that there are no breaks for commercials or station IDs during the one-hour plus broadcast. I talked with John Stabley, V.P. of Global Operations for Skinny Moose Media, who is attending the Archery Trade Associations trade show in Indianapolis now through Saturday. He gives us an update on the show and how things are going for him.

Other highlights of the show include discussion of some of the continued budget problems at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and an introduction to Bill Moore’s radio broadcast on a local Upper Peninsula sports radio station.

I also spend some time discussing the economic impact hunting, fishing and recreation has on this country with its millions of participants, yet never any mention of these topics with presidential candidates.

Plus a couple of surprises.

Below is the audio player where you can click and stream audio right now as you read more of the Black Bear Blog or just browsing about the Internet. And for those of you who may not have the time now, visit the Open Air download page and find every show that has been done. You can stream audio of each show now or download it to your media player and listen at your leisure.

[AUDIO:http://www.skinnymoose.com/downloads/openairjan10show.mp3]

Tom Remington

The other day I brought you a story about some groups wishing to turn northern Maine into a giant national park and or make millions of acres of land designated at National Heritage Areas. Friend and fellow writer, David Crews, pointed me to this video I thought would be appropriate to share with you.

Tom Remington

A very troubling article appeared Saturday in the Lewiston Sun Journal announcing this Tuesday’s annual meeting of the Androscoggin River Watershed Council to be held at Sunday River Ski Resort. The keynote address is to be delivered by David Vail, a professor of economics at Bowdoin College. He will speak on “Tourism Strategy for Maine’s North Woods: Getting to World Class.” Mr. Vail is also a member of Gov. Baldacci’s steering committee on natural resource-based industries.

His talk will focus on efforts over the past four years to turn Maine’s Northern Forest region into a world class tourist destination. He hopes that will happen in three steps.

Part one involves shaping the 2 million acres of existing protected lands into a Great Maine Woods Recreation Area. The second and third parts involve securing federal designation of a Maine Woods National Heritage Area and helping hundreds of tourism businesses – from outfitters to restaurants – deliver world-class product quality and livable-wage jobs

More on this in a moment but the conference being held at the resort will have a focus on outdoor recreation and the economy surrounding the Androscoggin River from Lake Umbagog to Merrymeeting Bay. There will be various speakers on the subject.

The article does not make it clear as to what 2 million acres of existing “protected” lands is being referred to. With the talk of designating some or all of these areas as a National Heritage Area is something that I question whether most people are aware of. And those promoting National Heritage Areas will never tell the local businesses and in particular any of the landowners just what might be involved in such a designation.

While Maine struggles to find ways to prop up an economy that is nearly non existent is some regions, Maine people cannot give away the farm, so to speak, in order to pull off some miracle cure for economic woes. Before I look more closely at the impacts of National Heritage Areas, Mainers need to ask themselves how much money is there really to be realized by setting aside millions of acres of lands, which as National Heritage Areas would remove them from the tax rolls, in hopes of drawing tourists. What kind of tourists will this draw? And of those, how many of them are willing to spend money?

Many have talked about turning much of northern Maine into a wilderness National Park or forest, essentially closed to anything except some foot traffic in designated areas. What kind of a tourist draw is that? I never met a wilderness seeker eager to drop a few hundred dollars on a vacation retreat. Those attending the conference I’m sure will hear how National Heritage Areas are extremely profitable. Are they and at what cost?

If we examine the watershed area that will discussed at this conference, it includes the Embagog Lake area and follows the Androscoggin River, the valley and watershed all the way to Merrymeeting Bay where it joins with the Kennebec River before finally emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. This entail massive amounts of land and my guess is just about all of it is privately owned.

Efforts have been ongoing for years to clean up the Andy and much has been done. With the clean up of the river and work by some local businesses, it is being discovered as a draw to boaters and fishermen. Efforts have secured water access points, once again achieved through local effort, small business and free enterprise.

Now Mainer’s are going to have a juicy carrot dangled in front of their faces in an effort to convince them that bigger is better. Let big government take over those efforts and then see what happens.

Land is a valuable commodity, once thought of as the ultimate dream, the pinnacle of success to own such. It was a mark of prosperity. As big government gets bigger, each year demanding more of our tax dollars, combined with stricter and stricter restrictions put on what we can do with our land, the incentives to own property are diminishing.

One third of all the land in the United States in owned by the federal government. How much more do we need or want to add to that? And at what expense?

In National Heritage Areas, land is determined to be in the best interest of those given the authority to oversee the use of such lands. They are called Management Entities. What if your land becomes a parcel that the “Management Entity” deem as essential to the formation and implementation of a National Heritage Area? Are you aware that your land could be taken from you via eminent domain? Are you aware that severe restrictions could be put on you and how you can use your land that you pay taxes on?

If the water and the land that make up the Androscoggin River watershed is such a valuable commodity, then why do we think that government oversight will keep it that way? What will become of the many farm lands that make up a great deal of the watershed area? Will some entity whose special interests and personal agendas begin a systematic closing of farm lands that interfere with the “World Class Tourist Destination”? What if your land would make a great spot for a boat launch, a park or a picnic area? What are your rights? Will you have any? Is this how Americans should create “World Class Tourist Destinations”?

Free enterprise can do a pretty good job of promoting money making commodities without stealing people’s lands and telling them what they can and can’t do with it. More and more people everyday are selling their land and properties and moving into rents. Why? They can’t afford the taxes, the insurance and they are sick and tired of having land and property only for the privilege of paying more and more taxes.

Designating a few million acres of land in Maine and removing it from the tax rolls is something Maine doesn’t need. It means the few people scattered through many of these tiny communities will need to dig even deeper into their pocket books in order to pay the tax from which the base has been reduced. Designating these lands as National Heritage Areas will also strip many Mainers of their right to utilize their land as they see fit. Instead they will be forced through the land designation to use that land only in a way that is conducive to providing tourists with a National Heritage Area. Whatever happened to working with the landowners, citizens and businesses instead of strong arming them into submission?

But there is far more to these National Heritage Areas than most Americans know about. I challenge you to visit the National Center for Public Policy Research website and get more information about what’s behind this seemingly innocent effort. Follow this link to an article written by Peyton Knight of NCPPR that gives a clear example of what can happen.

There is pending legislation that would create a management entity to oversee your land. Here’s an example of one such effort being discussed as I write.

This consortium of preservation elitists and federal bureaucrats would form a “management entity,” and be given a federal mandate to create an “inventory” of all property in the area that it wants “preserved,” “managed” or “acquired” because of its “national historic significance.”

Doesn’t this already sound quite familiar? Baldacci has already ordered another one of his steering committees to inventory all the public lands and recreational easements the state has and prioritize them. And for what purpose is he doing this? Is he already making plans to dump Maine’s public lands into the hands of the federal government to be taken care of by a federally designated “management entity”? And who would become that entity?

Once groups such as the Androscoggin River Watershed Council are able to be recognized by the federal government as a “management entity”, it means access to huge earmarks and pork-barrel spending. Whether people are aware of this or not, they need to know. Perhaps some or all of the members of these groups, even those who sit on the ARWC steering committee, aren’t aware of this. Then again, maybe they are. Maybe this is what’s really behind this. Do you know? Will you ask or just take the attractive bait hook, line and sinker and then wait to see what happens. Who do you think will really reap the benefits of a National Heritage Area?

A recent report done by the Brooking’s Institute said that Maine’s biggest asset was it’s natural resources and beauty. Does that mean we should take this asset and turn it over to government? Think about it. Free enterprise has always been the best method to spur on a sluggish economy. The last thing it needs is more government, which is part of the problem facing Maine taxpayers now.

While the state looks to climb out of a deep recession hole, it can’t bury itself deeper by giving away the means to fill in the hole. Those attending this conference need to keep their focus on free enterprise and their rights as property owners before they become committed to turning Maine into a preservationists National Heritage Area.

Tom Remington

On January 24, the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission is planning a meeting to hear public debate on the prospects of opening up a spring catch and release fishing season for Atlantic salmon. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Holden Elementary School.

Presently, there is a short season in the fall on a short stretch of the Penobscot River near Bangor, but some anglers would like to see a spring version of that. According to Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News, even the biologists involved in this project are not in complete agreement.

A mortality assessment performed by state fisheries biologists determined that the proposed May fishery would pose “extremely low” risks to the fish. But even biologists at the Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat — the agency that oversees restoration and management of Atlantic salmon — have been split about whether the state should hold a spring season.

Evidently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is debating whether to add the Penobscot salmon to the endangered list. Should that happen, most conclude that it would put an end to any kind of salmon fishing on the Penobscot River.

Tom Remington

Trout Unlimited has gone public in its position on global warming. They have published a report called, “Helping Trout and Salmon Survive Climate Change”. Essentially TU believes that government, which will be loaded with tax dollars many believe will be made available through Congress, must step in and take over the steps necessary to save the cold waters that support our trout and salmon.

Senate Bill 2191 calls for spending $175 billion dollars in the next 30 years to find ways of protecting our waters from warming.

Follow this link and you can find this report along with other information about TU’s position on global warming.

Tom Remington

Self-made millionaire Roxanne Quimby, who recently sold her last shares of her company Burt’s Bees and has been on a mission to buy up a lot of northern Maine land, also continues to block access to that land, most often prohibiting hunting, trapping and fishing. While completely legal to close her own land, the acts have left many Mainers angry.

Last year the state of Maine secretly negotiated a land swap deal that would give the state a 6,000-acre piece of land that included Lake Katahdin near Baxter State Park. Part of the deal divided the land into two segments. The lower segment included Katahdin Lake and about 4,000 acres which was made part of Baxter State Park and has very limited access. The northern parcel of about 2,000 acres is now being managed by the Maine Department of Conservation and is open to everyone – although now that Quimby has further blocked access, Mainers now have no real way to get to that land, used by some for hunting.

That deal angered many of us who were willing to look beyond the pretty piece of land and see the lopsided swap arrangement, the limited access and the many problems that would face Maine residents owning land next to Quimby. Also at issue was whether or not Quimby was involved in those secret negotiations that some of us believed would result in more land closures and virtually no access to land owned by the state. Much of Quimby’s land is around the Baxter Park and Katahdin Lake parcels. Although denied by those involved, many of us thought that the MDOC and Quimby secretly negotiated land deals, all of which still remain unrevealed to the citizens of Maine.

Over the weekend, I received photographs from reader Steve Lane and a brief message that read as follows:

Well…..its official. Roxanne Quimby has blocked access to her land in the Katahdin Region. Here are the photos I took today when I tried to take my daughter to some of our traditional hunting spots.

The first picture, as Steve captioned it, is of the gate blocking the Kellogg Mountain Road.

The second picture shows the Sandy Stream access road now closed by water bars and huge boulders.

The third picture reveals signs limiting access to her “Nature Sanctuary”.

Tom Remington

Before some of you think I’ve flipped my lid and jumped on the global warming bandwagon, read on. There are other dangers that are beginning to surface because our society has too eagerly accepted one man’s theory about global warming and in particular the effects of carbon dioxide.

Just yesterday I shared with readers about the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, a bill proposed by some members of the U.S. Senate that would have far reaching affects on all citizens but more importantly for us hunters, trappers and fishermen. This act would give the federal government far too much authority over state’s fish and game management programs, strip you and I of our property rights and further put a cramping on business, development and industry dependent on natural resources.

We can add one more thing this morning to this growing list of threats to citizens as the result of something we’ve decided to call global warming. Whether we believe in global warming as is being pushed by the doom and gloom bunch, we have to at least consider the side effects of such.

In Kansas, the Department of Health and Environment has rejected a permit application by a cooperative that is seeking to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants (New York Times article). The DHE rejected that permit based solely on a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. the Environmental Protection Agency in which the court ruled that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated. This is the first time any regulatory agency has denied a permit of this kind based solely on the premise of global warming.

Granted there are many people who applaud such a rejection because of their concerns over pollution but at least consider the precedent that is being set here. A permit is being denied strictly on the premise that a theory – I’m sorry but there is just as much scientific evidence to disprove global warming as defined as there is to support it – about the effects of carbon dioxide is causing the end of the world.

Is this the beginning of a domino effect? Are we going to destroy our own society, our economies and livelihoods over global warming? If you are a promoter of global warming at least use some sense and sensibility about what steps we are taking to combat it. Yanking the rug out from under everything in the name of global warming is as irresponsible as doing nothing at all about cleaning up our atmosphere and environment.

We should all keep a close eye on every action that is being taken in the name of global warming. This could have devastating affects on us all.

Tom Remington