Carey,

What gives with the consistent bashing of the enviros that are looking out for the interests of all of us when they take the side of the natural environment?

It occurs to me that our democracy works through compromise from all stakeholders. Plum Creek pushes one edge, the enviromentalists push the opposite edge, the result hopefully being the "balanced approach" you allude to. If there wasn't anyone pushing the green edge, what kind of agreement would result? Skewed to the profit edge I believe.

As well, the article by Carson urges Plum Creek to "go back to the drawing board," not requesting "no development" as you allude to above. Your out-of-context quotes from the article are extreme and don't contribute to the balanced approach you are advocating.

I agree that development will happen and will be beneficial for the people in the Moosehead Lake region. But without input from all sides, a compromise that provides for development while not taking into account the ecological impact is irresponsible.

How about a little more "fair and balanced" commentary?

Middle Path

Thanks Middle Path.

If some in the state environmental movement hadn't spent a good part of the last two decades in efforts meant to destabilize the forest products industry, I'd probably have a rosier view of them.

Those efforts contributed (contributed not caused, there were other factors too) to the further decline of an industry already precariously positioned. And how did the paper companies react? They sold off their land to generate cash and keep their mills operating. So big chunks of land started changing hands and made people nervous and concerned.

Rightly so.

An unintended cause and effect?

Maybe.

So today I again question the true motives of the 'enviros' as you call them.

I don't believe they want any type of development. So why not just say that?

Plum Creek has a plan. What is the enviros alternative plan? Put it out there for the public to judge along side the other.

Altruism vs. Reality...

We are discussing privately held land owned by a for profit company that must answer to shareholders seeking a return on their investment. Like it or not they can provide or deny access to the public.

Ask any land or property owner how state taxes and insurance has recently impacted them. Plum Creek's plan will retain the vast majority of their acreage for working forest and provide public access, can be made possible by their ability to develop some of its more valuable land holdings.

This seems much more palatable than their denying public access and/or selling large land tracts to create more private "kingdoms" for wealthy people from "away". Based on purchase price, taxes and insurance premiums
public access will most certainly be denied.

And in case you've forgotten Maine is in no position to purchase this land to turn into a wilderness...

like the first commenter, i've found myself increasingly perplexed by the rather uniform anti-environmental stance taken here. i don't happen to favor a fundamentalist environmental position either, and have found some of the commentary here enlightening from a development perspective, but the discussion has been almost completely one sided.

this is your space, so that's obviously your perogative, but as an observer with no real stake one way or another, i have to say that your arguments are doing you a potential disservice in their apparent bias.

one last thought, on this bit:

"Geography alone will naturally limit development in and around Moosehead. This isn't the coast. This isn't a few hours from Boston. Or even anywhere near a major airport. Access to the area takes time and effort. It always will."

always is a long time. given enough development, distance can be shrunk. just something to think about.

they're onto you, you RWFer....