Letter to the Editor: Whatever happened to your vote and your safety?

5 mins read

Nobody likes being deceived because it isn’t honest, and most people value honesty. In politics especially, we expect our representatives to tell us the truth or at least not conceal it.

In at least one case, that didn’t happen. LD 1702, the Land for Maine’s Future bond bill, was recently heard by the Appropriations and Financial Affairs committee, voted on and then passed by both house and senate, headed on its way to the ballot this fall.

Unfortunately, it had a troubling mandate that caused many people to testify against it in committee and submit letters and opinion pieces in newspapers urging its deletion or amendment, but it made no difference. Here’s the mandate, with emphasis added:

Hunting, fishing, trapping and public access may not be prohibited on land acquired with bond proceeds, except to the extent of applicable state, local or federal laws, rules and regulations and except for working waterfront projects and farmland protection projects.”

You’d think that this requirement – unique treatment for a relatively small special interest group causing some of us to wonder why hunters, fishermen and trappers deserve a favored status above that of every one else – would have been well publicized. It was found (if you could find it at all) buried deep in the nine pages of fine print that comprised LD 1702. The one place it should have been (but wasn’t) would have been in the ballot language where voters would see it and know what they were being asked to approve.

Another concern was the implication in the mandate that hunting, fishing, trapping needed an unusual status because of a widespread prohibition of these activities on public land. In fact, the only time when any of the above activities is not allowed would be when a local land manager determined it to be incompatible with the preservation of the conserved land and the safety of the public who use it. There is no blanket exclusion of activities on protected land; it’s all determined on a case-by-case basis. Traditionally, that approach has worked well – it doesn’t need to be changed or made less effective.

Lack of transparency, undermining of local land management – two good reasons to oppose LD 1702 LMF Bond – but we’ll never have the chance because the process was hijacked.

Prior to LD 1702 being voted on, it was amended in committee, and changes were approved which reduced the bill to basically a transportation bond, one that by its very nature would likely be approved. Guided by the AFA committee and allied with the governor, LMF was included in the state budget to the tune of $40M, financed by the Cascade Fund, a source which may well prove to have issues of its own. The mandate -buried in nine pages of print in LD 1702 – was now in the budget (LD 221) buried even deeper on page 242.

The result of this move was a new form of voter suppression. Because it’s no longer a bond, the decision to approve or reject LMF has been taken from Maine voters. Their opinion doesn’t count, their concerns don’t matter, their voices are silenced. The people’s traditional right to decide such measures has been subverted by an end run around the power of the ballot, and LMF, which was never intended to provide preferential treatment for special interests or to impose undemocratic mandates on everyone else, has made a simple walk in the woods a risky venture.

Thanks to the mandate, trapping must be allowed on any land conserved with LMF funds with the exception of farm protection projects and working waterfronts. So as you and your pet stroll along new LMF property, you’d better be careful because trappers are not required to post warning signs nor are they required to indicate where traps have been placed. And if your local land manager doesn’t like it, that’s too bad because traditional local control has been undermined by special interests. You may also have to dodge a bullet because hunting (including baiting and hounding) must be allowed as well.

Two questions arise – why was all this permitted by our public servants and why has it never been reported in the media?

Don Loprieno
Bristol

Print Friendly, PDF & Email