Only in Maine

Herd of bison escapes farm, roams free in Aroostook County​

pressherald.com/2022/03/16/herd-of-bison-escapes-farm-roams-free-in-aroostook-county/

By Dennis Hoey March 17, 2022
BisonCropped-1647484118.jpg


Bison crossing a road in northern Maine on Wednesday. Photos by Debbie Maynard, courtesy News Center Maine

A herd of bison that broke through a fence early Wednesday morning roamed the countryside between Fort Fairfield and Presque Isle, causing concerns that the animals might force a local ski area to close for the evening.

But the Quoggy Jo Ski Center in Presque Isle was able to reopen Wednesday evening after the bisons’ owners captured the animals and returned them to the farm in Fort Fairfield from which they escaped, police said.

The ski center, which posted a video on its Facebook page of one of the bison wandering across its property, is owned and operated by the Quoddy Jo Ski Club. The club depends on fundraising and community donations to operate.

All of the bison were secured around 5:30 p.m., but not all of the animals made it home safely. One was struck by a truck and had to be put down, Presque Isle police Officer Daniel Varnum said in a telephone interview. The truck was totaled, according to police.

Police said they were notified of the bisons’ escape around 4:45 a.m.

Michael Maynard, a former resident of South Dakota, told News Center Maine that he nearly struck the bison while driving to Presque Isle around 8:30 a.m.

“I was coming up the hill where the Nordic trail is at, and I saw a glimpse of something dark coming down from the trail and I slammed on my brakes,” Maynard told the TV network. “Then I realize it was a buffalo and I says, what’s a buffalo doing here?”
 
There goes the neighborhood...

Call me selfish, but unlike some here who have escaped the crowds and high taxes of suburbia, I really don't want an influx of fellow emigrees ruining my slice of heaven. Looks like that damn virus has done that, as my county is the coastal one with the highest increase in population on a percentage basis.

The negative impact has already been seen with folks looking for "speed bumps" on country lanes, complaining that dogs run around unleashed, are horrified when someone, yours truly, takes their boat up into very secluded coves to catch bass, complain about the noise and smell from lobster Co-Ops, don't like seeing clam/worm diggers behind their houses, etc.

This keeps up I may start singing "Oh Canada". Hell, their striper fishery in the Miramichi River watershed has become nothing short of spectacular...

1648297912974.webp
 
Interesting, The Admiral and I were sitting around our "distal" firepit last year having the inaugural fire down there for the 2021 season when suddenly we heard ships horns, cheers and other noises break the silence we're used to. Turned out to be this launching, as W&D, which usually makes some killer tug boats, is 4 mi as the osprey flies from Chez Roccus.

As the year progressed, I kept wondering WTH the ferry was doing tied up at W&D every time I motored past there enroute to some of my striper haunts in that river. At least I know I won't be see her this year and may eventually see her underway as I go bast Rockland...

Newest Penobscot Bay ferry remains tied up at dock​

pressherald.com/2022/03/31/newest-penobscot-bay-ferry-remains-tied-up-at-dock/

By Stephen Betts April 1, 2022

The Maine State Ferry Service vessel Captain Richard G. Spear remains tied up at the ferry terminal in Rockland nearly one year after the $10 million ship was launched with a festive ceremony.


The Captain Richard G. Spear tied up at the Rockland ferry terminal. Stephen Betts photo

“It’s still undergoing construction in Rockland. We’re aiming to have the vessel ready for sea trials this spring,” Paul Merrill, spokesman for the Maine Department of Transportation, said on Wednesday.
Maine State Ferry Service Manager Mark Higgins said the vessel was launched last April but was not delivered to the Ferry Service dock in Rockland until the middle of January 2022.

“When a vessel is launched, there are always several weeks to months of work for the shipyard to complete. It does not mean the state of Maine has ownership of the ferry; the vessel is still under construction and at W&D (Washburn & Doughty shipyard in East Boothbay). Launching is a ceremonial moment to be celebrated and not delivery/acceptance by the MSFS,” Higgins said.

He said there is always a delay when a newly constructed vessel comes to the Ferry Service because the local U.S. Coast Guard officer in charge of marine inspections has to issue the initial certificate of inspection, and the crews need to be trained. In addition, the Ferry Service has to develop periodic test procedures according to the Coast Guard regulations, Higgins said.

“We took delivery of the vessel to help out W&D since they were short on dock space and would need to continue to pay builder’s insurance when the vessel is at their facility. We did this to be a good partner and help a small Maine company. W&D is sending their people up to work on small things that need to be corrected while they wait on the elevator parts. Construction is not complete until the elevator work is completed and accepted by the Maine State Ferry Service,” Higgins said.

The original construction contract with Washburn & Doughty shipyard in East Boothbay was for $8,783,700. There have been a number of change orders over the base amount, and post-pandemic construction costs are higher than pre-pandemic ones, he said. The current construction contract is approximately $10,150,000.

The 156-foot ferry has not yet carried passengers other than staff, he said.

The Captain Spear was launched on April 9, 2021, and at that time was expected to being making trips to Vinalhaven in July 2021.

The Captain Spear can carry 250 passengers and 23 motor vehicles. The Captain Spear will replace the Captain Charles Philbrook. The Philbrook carries 17 vehicles.

The Philbrook will be used as a back-up ferry. The 1968-constructed ferry Gov. Curtis – which is now used as a back-up vessel – will be taken out of service, the state said at the time of the April 2021 launching of the Captain Spear.

The Spear will join the Captain E. Frank Thompson in serving Vinalhaven located 15 miles off Rockland. About 45,000 passengers use the Vinalhaven ferries each year.

Captain Richard G. Spear died in 2018 at the age of 96.

He was the first employee of the Maine State Ferry Service and was involved in creating both the old ferry terminal and the subsequent one that currently serves people traveling back and forth from Vinalhaven, North Haven and Matinicus islands. He served as ferry service manager for 30 years, retiring in 1989.

He remained on the Ferry Service Advisory Board until his death.

Spear, a 1943 graduate of the Maine Maritime Academy, helped guide legislation through the Maine Legislature to create the Port District in 1954 to oversee freight and passenger transportation for Rockland. He was elected to the Port District in 1954 and city residents reelected him every four years. He served as chairman until his death.
 
Interesting, The Admiral and I were sitting around our "distal" firepit last year having the inaugural fire down there for the 2021 season when suddenly we heard ships horns, cheers and other noises break the silence we're used to. Turned out to be this launching, as W&D, which usually makes some killer tug boats, is 4 mi as the osprey flies from Chez Roccus.

As the year progressed, I kept wondering WTH the ferry was doing tied up at W&D every time I motored past there enroute to some of my striper haunts in that river. At least I know I won't be see her this year and may eventually see her underway as I go bast Rockland...

Newest Penobscot Bay ferry remains tied up at dock​

pressherald.com/2022/03/31/newest-penobscot-bay-ferry-remains-tied-up-at-dock/

By Stephen Betts April 1, 2022

The Maine State Ferry Service vessel Captain Richard G. Spear remains tied up at the ferry terminal in Rockland nearly one year after the $10 million ship was launched with a festive ceremony.


The Captain Richard G. Spear tied up at the Rockland ferry terminal. Stephen Betts photo

“It’s still undergoing construction in Rockland. We’re aiming to have the vessel ready for sea trials this spring,” Paul Merrill, spokesman for the Maine Department of Transportation, said on Wednesday.
Maine State Ferry Service Manager Mark Higgins said the vessel was launched last April but was not delivered to the Ferry Service dock in Rockland until the middle of January 2022.

“When a vessel is launched, there are always several weeks to months of work for the shipyard to complete. It does not mean the state of Maine has ownership of the ferry; the vessel is still under construction and at W&D (Washburn & Doughty shipyard in East Boothbay). Launching is a ceremonial moment to be celebrated and not delivery/acceptance by the MSFS,” Higgins said.

He said there is always a delay when a newly constructed vessel comes to the Ferry Service because the local U.S. Coast Guard officer in charge of marine inspections has to issue the initial certificate of inspection, and the crews need to be trained. In addition, the Ferry Service has to develop periodic test procedures according to the Coast Guard regulations, Higgins said.

“We took delivery of the vessel to help out W&D since they were short on dock space and would need to continue to pay builder’s insurance when the vessel is at their facility. We did this to be a good partner and help a small Maine company. W&D is sending their people up to work on small things that need to be corrected while they wait on the elevator parts. Construction is not complete until the elevator work is completed and accepted by the Maine State Ferry Service,” Higgins said.

The original construction contract with Washburn & Doughty shipyard in East Boothbay was for $8,783,700. There have been a number of change orders over the base amount, and post-pandemic construction costs are higher than pre-pandemic ones, he said. The current construction contract is approximately $10,150,000.

The 156-foot ferry has not yet carried passengers other than staff, he said.

The Captain Spear was launched on April 9, 2021, and at that time was expected to being making trips to Vinalhaven in July 2021.

The Captain Spear can carry 250 passengers and 23 motor vehicles. The Captain Spear will replace the Captain Charles Philbrook. The Philbrook carries 17 vehicles.

The Philbrook will be used as a back-up ferry. The 1968-constructed ferry Gov. Curtis – which is now used as a back-up vessel – will be taken out of service, the state said at the time of the April 2021 launching of the Captain Spear.

The Spear will join the Captain E. Frank Thompson in serving Vinalhaven located 15 miles off Rockland. About 45,000 passengers use the Vinalhaven ferries each year.

Captain Richard G. Spear died in 2018 at the age of 96.

He was the first employee of the Maine State Ferry Service and was involved in creating both the old ferry terminal and the subsequent one that currently serves people traveling back and forth from Vinalhaven, North Haven and Matinicus islands. He served as ferry service manager for 30 years, retiring in 1989.

He remained on the Ferry Service Advisory Board until his death.

Spear, a 1943 graduate of the Maine Maritime Academy, helped guide legislation through the Maine Legislature to create the Port District in 1954 to oversee freight and passenger transportation for Rockland. He was elected to the Port District in 1954 and city residents reelected him every four years. He served as chairman until his death.
Very interesting ????
 

Herd of bison escapes farm, roams free in Aroostook County​

pressherald.com/2022/03/16/herd-of-bison-escapes-farm-roams-free-in-aroostook-county/

By Dennis Hoey March 17, 2022
BisonCropped-1647484118.jpg


Bison crossing a road in northern Maine on Wednesday. Photos by Debbie Maynard, courtesy News Center Maine

A herd of bison that broke through a fence early Wednesday morning roamed the countryside between Fort Fairfield and Presque Isle, causing concerns that the animals might force a local ski area to close for the evening.

But the Quoggy Jo Ski Center in Presque Isle was able to reopen Wednesday evening after the bisons’ owners captured the animals and returned them to the farm in Fort Fairfield from which they escaped, police said.

The ski center, which posted a video on its Facebook page of one of the bison wandering across its property, is owned and operated by the Quoddy Jo Ski Club. The club depends on fundraising and community donations to operate.

All of the bison were secured around 5:30 p.m., but not all of the animals made it home safely. One was struck by a truck and had to be put down, Presque Isle police Officer Daniel Varnum said in a telephone interview. The truck was totaled, according to police.

Police said they were notified of the bisons’ escape around 4:45 a.m.

Michael Maynard, a former resident of South Dakota, told News Center Maine that he nearly struck the bison while driving to Presque Isle around 8:30 a.m.

“I was coming up the hill where the Nordic trail is at, and I saw a glimpse of something dark coming down from the trail and I slammed on my brakes,” Maynard told the TV network. “Then I realize it was a buffalo and I says, what’s a buffalo doing here?”
The Buffalo aren't nearly as funny as the Quoddy Jo Ski Club. !!. :p
 
LOVE IT!! No impact on old fart salts, or any folk enjoying salt water!! Just wish they would make all Jet Ski folks take the course, but only a few idiots in my harbor, another advantage to water temps that rarely get above 65°F...

Maine’s first boating license law would go into effect in 2024​

pressherald.com/2022/04/11/maines-first-boating-license-law-would-go-into-effect-in-2024/

By Samantha Hogan April 11, 2022
Screen-Shot-2022-04-11-at-10.38.29-AM-1649688304.jpg

Most boaters under age 25 will be required to pass an education and safety course before January 2024 to operate on Maine’s lakes and rivers because of a bill passed by the state Legislature this year.

Maine is an outlier among states by currently not requiring boating licenses. The proposed law requires operators of motor boats and jet skis to be educated on state boating laws, wildlife and environmental impacts, or risk fines and misdemeanor criminal charges for noncompliance.

Optional boater education courses are already offered online and in person. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife recognizes four online courses and boaters will need to pass one to be certified under the proposed law. A six-hour, in-person course is also offered in Portland.


The proposed law is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024 and apply to anyone born in 1999 or later. It faces one final legislative hurdle before going to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature.

“Sometimes the best way to teach adults new things is by making sure that younger people understand the thing that we’re trying to learn,” said Rep. Jessica Fay (D-Raymond), who sponsored the bill that gained the support of lake associations, environmental and wildlife groups, and lakeside property owners.

Spending summers at her family camp on Sebago Lake, Fay learned to operate a boat from her father and grandfather. Over the years she has seen more recreational boaters come to Maine and operate unsafely — sometimes striking loons and rocking smaller watercraft.

“For a lot of my adult life it was a head-scratcher to me how people could be so unaware of what safe boating looks like,” said Fay.

She concluded the paths forward to improving safe boating came down to knowledge and education.
Under Maine’s proposed new law, anyone born in or after 1999 will need to pass a boater education course before driving a boat of 25 horsepower or higher or to operate a personal watercraft — such as a Jet Ski — on inland waters. The state’s minimum age to operate a Jet Ski will remain 16.

Boaters who violate the new law would be fined between $100 and $500 per offense, and those with three or more violations in a five-year period could be charged with a Class E crime.

Those under age 25 aren’t the demographic of boaters getting in the most accidents or causing the most fatalities, according to national data collected by the Coast Guard.

By first applying the law to children and young adults, they can model safe boating practices to their parents, Fay said. Similar to how recycling was taught in schools and children’s behavior was mirrored at home, she said.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which enforces boating laws on the state’s inland waters, sees the bill as an important change. The department initially sought to have all state boaters complete an educational course by 2027, regardless of their age, but agreed to the compromise lawmakers reached to start with boaters born in and after 1999.

Pushback from a sportsman’s group about public access to legislative debate, and concern among lawmakers about requiring people who are decades removed from high school to take and pass an exam factored into the decision to limit the bill to younger boaters.

The law will only apply to inland waters. A stakeholder group of recreational sportsmen, marine industries and the Department of Marine Resources that oversees Maine’s coastal waters will also be formed, the law states, to make recommendations to the Legislature on how to potentially implement the law on tidal waters.

Lawmakers intend to review the study group’s recommendations next year.

The Department of Marine Resources was not prepared to answer questions about the possibility of expanding the law to include tidal waters at this time.

“We look forward to taking part in the stakeholder group to ensure that all issues are considered before a legal mandate for boater safety training for coastal waters is established,” a spokesman for the department wrote in an email.

The House voted 91-39 in favor of the bill on March 31 and gave its final approval on April 7. Senators unanimously passed it on April 5.

Lawmakers will take one final vote to enact the bill before sending it to Mills.
 
Brand new Bronco spent the weekend stuck in the mud near "Bah Hahbah", driver doing donuts on a mud flat at low tide. Didn't figure on the glue muck we have here, nor the 12 ft tides on Mount Desert Island.

Of course he was a tourist, saw a clip today of them finally getting it out of the muck and there was that "tan" license plate indicative of a "Joisey" Nobel Laureate. ROTFLMAO!!!

 
Sa
Brand new Bronco spent the weekend stuck in the mud near "Bah Hahbah", driver doing donuts on a mud flat at low tide. Didn't figure on the glue muck we have here, nor the 12 ft tides on Mount Desert Island.

Of course he was a tourist, saw a clip today of them finally getting it out of the muck and there was that "tan" license plate indicative of a "Joisey" Nobel Laureate. ROTFLMAO!!!


Salt water = total loss.
 
“Only In Maine”, not quite…

many “stuck inda mud” pics from democrat and fins on that other website… cellfish…
 
Phew, I still own 1,000 ft of thick tidal mud, not that I've ever seen anyone down there with a blanket and beach umbrella...

Maine judge affirms that intertidal zone belongs to private property owners​

pressherald.com/2022/04/20/superior-court-says-intertidal-zone-belongs-to-private-property-owners/

By Megan Gray April 20, 2022
23868522_20210422_lawsuit_0001-1024x683.jpg

A sign on Moody Beach tells visitors that the area north of the Wells-Ogunquit line is private. A group challenged a law that gives ownership of the intertidal zone to property owners instead of the state, but a judge has ruled mostly against them. Ben McCanna/Staff Photographer

A Cumberland County Superior Court justice has affirmed that the land between the high and low tide marks on Maine beaches belongs to private property owners, not the state, but he did not rule on whether the public could use that land for activities like running.

The ruling dealt a blow to the nearly two dozen plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit to overturn the private ownership of the intertidal zone. Superior Court Justice John O’Neil Jr. dismissed nearly all of the claims and half of the defendants in an order this week. But O’Neil also suggested that a future order could expand the allowed uses on that public land, and the entire case still could be bound for the state’s top court.

“This lawsuit is the latest battle in the war over the intertidal lands off Maine’s coast,” O’Neil wrote.
Most coastal states own the land between the low and high tide marks on their beaches. More than 30 years ago, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that private owners own all the way to the low-tide line, it also said the public has limited rights to use the intertidal zone for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” That language dates back to an ordinance from the 1640s, and its meaning has long been disputed.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to expand that definition, and that part of the lawsuit is still alive.
Many of the 23 plaintiffs have a business interest in the intertidal zone as seaweed harvesters and processors, clammers, wormers and oyster farmers. One is a marine biologist; another is a professor emeritus at the University of Maine School of Law and a longtime voice in the legal debate over beach ownership. Others own property near Moody Beach in Wells – the same beach that was the focus of the 1980s rulings from the Supreme Judicial Court. They filed their complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court in April 2021.

Attorney Ben Ford, who represents the plaintiffs, issued a statement Wednesday that did not address the sweeping dismissal. He also did not answer follow-up questions via email about what appeal options are available to his clients and how this ruling will impact their ultimate goal of public beach ownership.

WEIGHING NEXT STEPS
“Today’s decision proves what every Mainer who relies on our shoreline knows to be true – Maine’s intertidal problem is far from settled,” Ford wrote in an email. “This decision gives us several options on next steps and we are weighing those options carefully. We thank the court for its diligence in addressing these issues and are eager to continue toward reclaiming the coast of Maine for all Mainers.”

Attorneys who represent most of the defendants said they were pleased with the decision. Five of 10 defendants will be entirely freed from the lawsuit. In 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court found that rockweed is on private property and can no longer be harvested without permission from landowners. In this case, O’Neil found that those five people were being sued only because they either called the Maine Marine Patrol on rockweed harvesters in the intertidal zones near their property or advocated for rockweed conservation.

“If the plaintiffs’ decision to name the Pages, Li and Newby had nothing to do with their reports to Maine Marine Patrol, then it is curious why every single shorefront property owner who claims title to adjacent intertidal land is not named in this suit,” O’Neil wrote.

O’Neil dismissed the claims against that group of defendants as a violation of Maine’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to deter such lawsuits. (SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.”)

“It’s a very good outcome and the outcome they were asking for,” attorney Gordon Smith, who represents those five people, said Wednesday. “They don’t want to be in litigation. They were just exercising their rights as they understood them.”

One of those defendants was Robin Hadlock Seeley, a marine scientist and one of the founders of the Maine Rockweed Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes conservation.

“It reinforced the rights of landowners, including coastal land trusts, to protect vital marine landscape and prevent indiscriminate habitat destruction,” she said of the order on Wednesday.

ARGUMENTS NEGATED BY PREVIOUS OPINIONS
The judge also dismissed three claims that put forth different arguments about why the state is the true owner of the intertidal zone. O’Neil said the Supreme Judicial Court had negated those arguments in previous opinions, and the plaintiffs could not make their case by challenging land conveyances from the seventeenth century.

“Based on the facts plead in this complaint, even viewed in the most favorable light possible, this action to quiet title to the intertidal lands on the State of Maine has been brought 120 years too late,” O’Neil wrote.

Attorney David Silk, who represents two LLCs that own beachfront property in Wells, said the question of ownership is “well-settled.”

“We are pleased to see the court agreed that the law in Maine is well-settled regarding ownership of Maine’s intertidal land,” Silk wrote in an email.

He did not address the remaining claim against his clients about public use of the intertidal zone near their properties. The complaint says access to the intertidal zone on Moody Beach has been restricted by signage or verbal instruction to leave or stay away from that stretch of sand. O’Neil wrote that it is not clear whether activities such as walking, running or doing research are allowed in the intertidal zone, but it is possible that they are. Settling that question could be one next step in the litigation.

An attorney who represented another LLC could not be reached Wednesday afternoon. Two defendants are not represented by any lawyer.

Maine has 3,500 miles of tidal coastline – according to state officials, the fourth longest in the United States. Most of it is rock, and sand beaches are rare. The justices who heard the Moody Beach case in the 1980s are no longer on the Supreme Judicial Court. But their successors have ruled multiple times about beach access and ownership in the decades since. Those cases have often focused on the meaning of “fishing, fowling and navigation” in a modern context.
 
Here's a complete summary, including a "float it out" photo for that Garden State's Nobel Laureate's epic fail. Surprised Division of Marine Services or the EPA aren't fining him bigtime...

Ford Bronco stuck for 3 days in the Atlantic Ocean near Bar Harbor​

pressherald.com/2022/04/20/ford-bronco-stuck-for-3-days-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

By Faith DeAmbrose April 20, 2022
Brono-with-airbags-1650554561-1024x683.jpeg

A series of inflatable pillow lift bags are placed under the Bronco to raise it from the ocean floor. Faith DeAmbrose/Mount Desert Islander

BAR HARBOR — It seems like every year a local tow truck company pulls a vehicle or two from the Atlantic Ocean in Bar Harbor after drivers fail to heed the daily tide cycle on a drive out to Bar Island.

For one driver who veered from the sandbar and into the mudflats, that mistake turned into a three-day ordeal that ended as a salvage operation and fueled days of social media chatter as people followed the saga.

On Saturday afternoon during the incoming tide, Jason St. Onage, the owner of a 2021 Ford Bronco registered in New Jersey, drove onto the beach and became stuck in the mud at the water’s edge about 500 feet from the land bridge to Bar Island. Unable to move the vehicle, St. Onage got out and called the Bar Harbor Police Department.

Les Foss, owner of Island Towing, and his team arrived on the scene and tried to remove the vehicle, but they were unable to because of the fast-rising tide.

Island Towing returned Sunday to try to remove the vehicle during each low tide but was unsuccessful. By then the vehicle had sunk farther into the mud and the electronics had malfunctioned, leaving the tow truck company unable to put the car into neutral and making it nearly impossible to drag out.

During the second attempt on Sunday, aided by a special winch system fabricated for their vehicles, Foss said they were able to move the Bronco about 150 feet before the ropes they were using snapped under the extreme tension.
Brono-stuck-kip-1024x683.jpeg

Island Towing works to move a Ford Bronco stuck in the mud in Bar Harbor during low tide Sunday. Kip Wing/Aerial Aesthetic

That is when the incident turned into a salvage operation.

On Monday morning, Greg Canders of Canders Diving Service in Bangor donned a wet suit and placed a series of inflatable pillow lift bags under the Bronco. Once inflated, and at high tide, the vehicle was able to be moved to the sandbar to Bar Island. Canders then drove back out to the vehicle to remove the inflatables, and Foss waited for the next low tide to remove the vehicle using a flatbed truck.

The vehicle was finally removed around 5 p.m. Monday.

Foss said his company was called to remove “four or five” vehicles that were submerged on the sandbar last year. The sandbar is exposed at low tide but at high tide it is fully submerged under nearly 12 feet of water.

Canders said it was not the first vehicle he has had to recover from the water. In fact, he has been called upon to remove a variety of items from the water including cars, boats and even two snowmobiles this past winter.

No charges will be filed against the driver, and the driver’s insurance company is expected to cover the loss.
 
You'd think that after 370 they would have figured this out...

Border dispute between Maine’s two oldest towns heads to court​

pressherald.com/2022/04/24/border-dispute-between-maines-two-oldest-towns-heads-to-court/

By Gillian Graham April 24, 2022

A controversy that has swirled for years over a small stretch of the border between Maine’s two oldest towns could soon be settled once and for all.

York and Kittery, normally friendly and cooperative neighbors, have been at odds over whether their shared border is straight or meandering. Maps drawn by each town in 1794 differed slightly, but the discrepancies apparently went largely unnoticed until four years ago.

After a survey of a Route 1 property that straddles the towns made it clear that their placements of part of the border didn’t match, officials from the two towns became locked in a back-and-forth over the exact location of the boundary.

Finally, York filed a complaint Feb. 22 in York County Superior Court asking a judge to appoint commissioners to settle the dispute. Kittery responded by saying no commissioners are needed because the border has been in the right place for well over three centuries. Kittery’s town manager has called York’s push to legally determine the border “an aggressive attempt to take land from Kittery.”

“Kittery will vigorously defend its borders,” Kittery Town Manager Kendra Amaral told town councilors on March 28. “It impacts neighborhoods, it impacts people’s property and the border has been recognized for hundreds of years.”

The border between York and Kittery was established in 1652 by decree from the Massachusetts Bay Colony under threat of force by an armed militia. Maps of the two towns drawn in 1794, a quarter-century before Maine became a state, show the border in slightly different spots.

Those differences weren’t an issue until that survey four years ago, commissioned by a local developer who had bought land along Route 1 that straddles the two towns. The survey found that the town line was 333 feet south of where modern maps show it to be. If the border is moved, that land would become part of York.

York officials think the developer’s survey shows the true straight-line border, but people down in Kittery disagree. The border that they say has been acknowledged for hundreds of years weaves slightly from Eliot to Brave Boat Harbor, they argue.

The dispute centers on land that includes about 300 feet of frontage on Route 1 north of Landmark Hill Lane. The area includes residential parcels, two cell towers and a cemetery. An attorney for Kittery said in court filings that York’s desired modification of the border would affect at least 25 residential properties covering over 300 acres, with a total assessed value of nearly $8 million.
YorkKitteryBorderDispute0120.jpg

Thedifferences in town maps when they first came to light prompted plenty of lighthearted ribbing about a “border war” breaking out between the two otherwise friendly towns. Town leaders in York joked about building a wall on their southern border, while Kittery residents imagined marching a militia northward.
But the issue is actually a serious one, municipal officials now say, and it needs to be settled.

The land in question is still largely wooded, but is in an area that has been developed in recent years. A border adjustment wouldn’t change anyone’s property ownership, but it would affect where some pay taxes, vote and go to school and which town maintains a cemetery. It could also change how that Route 1 property is developed.

Amaral believes York’s motivation to take this issue to court comes from a single property owner who is looking to develop property around the disputed border and right now has to comply with zoning in both towns. The property owner, who is not identified in town records, “is not happy with what Kittery has said” about how the property can be developed, she told the town council in late March.

Kittery has submitted a Freedom of Access Act request to York for all public records – including letters, emails, texts and social media messages – between town officials and past and present owners of the property at 524 U.S. Route 1. Amaral told the town council she suspects this will give the town a better sense of why York is pressing the border issue now.

A LONG HISTORY
Kittery, incorporated in 1647, is the oldest town in Maine and originally included the towns now known as Eliot, Berwick, North Berwick and South Berwick.

In November 1652, commissioners from the Massachusetts Bay Colony arrived in Kittery, intent on annexing what was then known as the Province of Maine up to modern-day Cape Porpoise. On Nov. 20, 42 inhabitants of Kittery signed a declaration acknowledging they would henceforth be subject to the Government of Massachusetts Bay.

Two days later, the commissioners traveled northeast to Gorgeana, where inhabitants had assembled at the house of Nicholas Davis. By the end of the day, they had taken the same oath as those in Kittery. Georgeana was reincorporated in 1652 as York, named for York, England, and was one of the last Royalist strongholds taken by the Puritans in the English Civil Wars.

Under the Articles of Submission signed in 1652, Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the towns to set up up their borders. In 1794, Massachusetts insisted that each town create a map because many towns were in disputes over their boundaries. The borders on the maps created that year of Kittery and York did not completely match, but no one seemed to worry at the time.

Map1-1024x564.jpg

Plan of Kittery, made by Benjamin Parker, dated November 1794 Massachusetts Archives
The border debate picked up in 2018, after the survey.

The following year, Todd Frederick, chairman of the York Board of Selectmen, sent his counterpart in Kittery a letter outlining York’s position that the border between their towns is a straight line established in 1652. He said the meandering line shown on local tax maps is inconsistent with the legally established border and asked Kittery to work with York to properly identify the “proper straight-line border” or ask the court to settle the matter.

Frederick cited a copy of a report that settled a contested border between York and Eliot to bolster York’s opinion that its border with Kittery is a straight line.

Eliot took York to court in 1991 to establish the boundary between the towns. The three-member commission established by a York County Superior Court judge determined the border between York and Eliot was a straight line.

Kittery officials disagree with York’s opinion that the ruling on the York-Eliot border has any bearing on the current border dispute. The report produced to settle the York-Eliot border issue did not review any historical records after 1810, when Eliot separated from Kittery, and ignored over 200 years of applicable historical record and all of the perambulations required by law, the town attorney wrote last month in a motion to dismiss York’s complaint.

Map2.jpg

Plan of York surveyed by Daniel Sewall, dated 1794-5. Massachusetts Archives

In a November 2019 response to Frederick’s letter, Judith Spiller, chair of the Kittery Town Council, wrote that the boundaries set forth by the Articles of Submission presented an alternate line to the one that had been used previously and that Kittery has used since. The town council, she said, believes the boundary between the two communities is not the one set forth in those articles but the one noted “in all relevant contemporary and historical documents.

“All U.S. Geological (Survey), State of Maine, Town of York and Town of Kittery maps and documents support the current and historical boundary between our two friendly communities,” she wrote.
Spiller disputed the validity of the border noted in the articles on other grounds as well.

“It is important to note that this particular boundary was established through aggression, imposed by decree from the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” she wrote. “Rife with arbitrary limitations set forth and enforced by armed militia, it reflected neither the established property lines of the times nor those before or after it.”

30003278_20220414_york-kittery_2-1024x684.jpg

The border between Kittery and York on land along Route 1. Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer
Amaral, Kittery’s town manager, and York Town Manager Stephen Burns each said they can’t comment on the dispute because it is in litigation.

BORDER GOES TO COURT
It is rare that disputes about municipal borders in Maine end up in court, but they are bound to pop up occasionally in a state whose town lines were set hundreds of years ago and often marked with stone walls, tree or granite markers that have long since disappeared.

In the complaint it filed in York County Superior Court in February, York asked the court to appoint three commissioners and empower them to determine the “true and correct” common boundary, describe the boundary line “by curves and distances,” and set markers to indicate the established border.

York argues in its filing that the 1652 description of the common boundary said it began at the head of Brave Boat Harbor and then ran “in a straight line to the head of ye Southwest branch of ye River of York.” The two towns, it said in its complaint, cooperatively identified that straight-line boundary through perambulations, or walking the line, in 1695, 1740, 1779 and 1794.

But the town said that waypoints that marked the boundary caused it to stray from its proper course and become a meandering line, not the straight line between two defined monuments identified in 1652.

Kittery has asked the court to dismiss York’s complaint, arguing that the situation should have been resolved long ago and York has not demonstrated a controversy sufficient to justify judicial review.
No hearings have been scheduled and a decision on the motion to dismiss could be a month or two away.

If the case is not dismissed, the court would likely appoint three commissioners with surveying experience to establish the exact location of the border.

Stephen Langsdorf of PretiFlaherty, who represents Kittery, said he “strongly believes the motion to dismiss will be granted because York did not comply with the requirement that border perambulations to confirm municipal boundaries occur every five years.” That process, which requires representatives of the town to walk the border, was required by law from 1820 to 2003.

“The point of the law was to timely identify any disputes about municipal borders,” Langsdorf said. “In other words, the case should have been resolved 200 years ago.”
 
You'd think that after 370 they would have figured this out...

Border dispute between Maine’s two oldest towns heads to court​

pressherald.com/2022/04/24/border-dispute-between-maines-two-oldest-towns-heads-to-court/

By Gillian Graham April 24, 2022

A controversy that has swirled for years over a small stretch of the border between Maine’s two oldest towns could soon be settled once and for all.

York and Kittery, normally friendly and cooperative neighbors, have been at odds over whether their shared border is straight or meandering. Maps drawn by each town in 1794 differed slightly, but the discrepancies apparently went largely unnoticed until four years ago.

After a survey of a Route 1 property that straddles the towns made it clear that their placements of part of the border didn’t match, officials from the two towns became locked in a back-and-forth over the exact location of the boundary.

Finally, York filed a complaint Feb. 22 in York County Superior Court asking a judge to appoint commissioners to settle the dispute. Kittery responded by saying no commissioners are needed because the border has been in the right place for well over three centuries. Kittery’s town manager has called York’s push to legally determine the border “an aggressive attempt to take land from Kittery.”

“Kittery will vigorously defend its borders,” Kittery Town Manager Kendra Amaral told town councilors on March 28. “It impacts neighborhoods, it impacts people’s property and the border has been recognized for hundreds of years.”

The border between York and Kittery was established in 1652 by decree from the Massachusetts Bay Colony under threat of force by an armed militia. Maps of the two towns drawn in 1794, a quarter-century before Maine became a state, show the border in slightly different spots.

Those differences weren’t an issue until that survey four years ago, commissioned by a local developer who had bought land along Route 1 that straddles the two towns. The survey found that the town line was 333 feet south of where modern maps show it to be. If the border is moved, that land would become part of York.

York officials think the developer’s survey shows the true straight-line border, but people down in Kittery disagree. The border that they say has been acknowledged for hundreds of years weaves slightly from Eliot to Brave Boat Harbor, they argue.

The dispute centers on land that includes about 300 feet of frontage on Route 1 north of Landmark Hill Lane. The area includes residential parcels, two cell towers and a cemetery. An attorney for Kittery said in court filings that York’s desired modification of the border would affect at least 25 residential properties covering over 300 acres, with a total assessed value of nearly $8 million.
YorkKitteryBorderDispute0120.jpg

Thedifferences in town maps when they first came to light prompted plenty of lighthearted ribbing about a “border war” breaking out between the two otherwise friendly towns. Town leaders in York joked about building a wall on their southern border, while Kittery residents imagined marching a militia northward.
But the issue is actually a serious one, municipal officials now say, and it needs to be settled.

The land in question is still largely wooded, but is in an area that has been developed in recent years. A border adjustment wouldn’t change anyone’s property ownership, but it would affect where some pay taxes, vote and go to school and which town maintains a cemetery. It could also change how that Route 1 property is developed.

Amaral believes York’s motivation to take this issue to court comes from a single property owner who is looking to develop property around the disputed border and right now has to comply with zoning in both towns. The property owner, who is not identified in town records, “is not happy with what Kittery has said” about how the property can be developed, she told the town council in late March.

Kittery has submitted a Freedom of Access Act request to York for all public records – including letters, emails, texts and social media messages – between town officials and past and present owners of the property at 524 U.S. Route 1. Amaral told the town council she suspects this will give the town a better sense of why York is pressing the border issue now.

A LONG HISTORY
Kittery, incorporated in 1647, is the oldest town in Maine and originally included the towns now known as Eliot, Berwick, North Berwick and South Berwick.

In November 1652, commissioners from the Massachusetts Bay Colony arrived in Kittery, intent on annexing what was then known as the Province of Maine up to modern-day Cape Porpoise. On Nov. 20, 42 inhabitants of Kittery signed a declaration acknowledging they would henceforth be subject to the Government of Massachusetts Bay.

Two days later, the commissioners traveled northeast to Gorgeana, where inhabitants had assembled at the house of Nicholas Davis. By the end of the day, they had taken the same oath as those in Kittery. Georgeana was reincorporated in 1652 as York, named for York, England, and was one of the last Royalist strongholds taken by the Puritans in the English Civil Wars.

Under the Articles of Submission signed in 1652, Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the towns to set up up their borders. In 1794, Massachusetts insisted that each town create a map because many towns were in disputes over their boundaries. The borders on the maps created that year of Kittery and York did not completely match, but no one seemed to worry at the time.

Map1-1024x564.jpg

Plan of Kittery, made by Benjamin Parker, dated November 1794 Massachusetts Archives
The border debate picked up in 2018, after the survey.

The following year, Todd Frederick, chairman of the York Board of Selectmen, sent his counterpart in Kittery a letter outlining York’s position that the border between their towns is a straight line established in 1652. He said the meandering line shown on local tax maps is inconsistent with the legally established border and asked Kittery to work with York to properly identify the “proper straight-line border” or ask the court to settle the matter.

Frederick cited a copy of a report that settled a contested border between York and Eliot to bolster York’s opinion that its border with Kittery is a straight line.

Eliot took York to court in 1991 to establish the boundary between the towns. The three-member commission established by a York County Superior Court judge determined the border between York and Eliot was a straight line.

Kittery officials disagree with York’s opinion that the ruling on the York-Eliot border has any bearing on the current border dispute. The report produced to settle the York-Eliot border issue did not review any historical records after 1810, when Eliot separated from Kittery, and ignored over 200 years of applicable historical record and all of the perambulations required by law, the town attorney wrote last month in a motion to dismiss York’s complaint.

Map2.jpg

Plan of York surveyed by Daniel Sewall, dated 1794-5. Massachusetts Archives

In a November 2019 response to Frederick’s letter, Judith Spiller, chair of the Kittery Town Council, wrote that the boundaries set forth by the Articles of Submission presented an alternate line to the one that had been used previously and that Kittery has used since. The town council, she said, believes the boundary between the two communities is not the one set forth in those articles but the one noted “in all relevant contemporary and historical documents.

“All U.S. Geological (Survey), State of Maine, Town of York and Town of Kittery maps and documents support the current and historical boundary between our two friendly communities,” she wrote.
Spiller disputed the validity of the border noted in the articles on other grounds as well.

“It is important to note that this particular boundary was established through aggression, imposed by decree from the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” she wrote. “Rife with arbitrary limitations set forth and enforced by armed militia, it reflected neither the established property lines of the times nor those before or after it.”

30003278_20220414_york-kittery_2-1024x684.jpg

The border between Kittery and York on land along Route 1. Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer
Amaral, Kittery’s town manager, and York Town Manager Stephen Burns each said they can’t comment on the dispute because it is in litigation.

BORDER GOES TO COURT
It is rare that disputes about municipal borders in Maine end up in court, but they are bound to pop up occasionally in a state whose town lines were set hundreds of years ago and often marked with stone walls, tree or granite markers that have long since disappeared.

In the complaint it filed in York County Superior Court in February, York asked the court to appoint three commissioners and empower them to determine the “true and correct” common boundary, describe the boundary line “by curves and distances,” and set markers to indicate the established border.

York argues in its filing that the 1652 description of the common boundary said it began at the head of Brave Boat Harbor and then ran “in a straight line to the head of ye Southwest branch of ye River of York.” The two towns, it said in its complaint, cooperatively identified that straight-line boundary through perambulations, or walking the line, in 1695, 1740, 1779 and 1794.

But the town said that waypoints that marked the boundary caused it to stray from its proper course and become a meandering line, not the straight line between two defined monuments identified in 1652.

Kittery has asked the court to dismiss York’s complaint, arguing that the situation should have been resolved long ago and York has not demonstrated a controversy sufficient to justify judicial review.
No hearings have been scheduled and a decision on the motion to dismiss could be a month or two away.

If the case is not dismissed, the court would likely appoint three commissioners with surveying experience to establish the exact location of the border.

Stephen Langsdorf of PretiFlaherty, who represents Kittery, said he “strongly believes the motion to dismiss will be granted because York did not comply with the requirement that border perambulations to confirm municipal boundaries occur every five years.” That process, which requires representatives of the town to walk the border, was required by law from 1820 to 2003.

“The point of the law was to timely identify any disputes about municipal borders,” Langsdorf said. “In other words, the case should have been resolved 200 years ago.”
Jeeze what a waste of time and money
 
It used to be the Wild West out there in the world of license plates, but alas, that's all going away...

Maine publishes standards meant to curb vulgar vanity plates​

pressherald.com/2022/05/05/maine-publishes-standards-meant-to-curb-vulgar-vanity-plates/

By Megan Gray May 5, 2022
20180504_FordFocus1-1024x768.jpg

If you have an explicit license plate in Maine, it might be about to get bleeped.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has released a draft rule to implement a law passed last year that allows her office to reject or recall more vanity plates based on profanity, sexually explicit messages or references to genitalia.

“Incitement to violence, profanity, ethnic, racial, religious, or other slurs, or reference to illegal or criminal activity – all of which unfortunately can be seen on Maine registration plates today – are all directly contrary to the public interest,” Bellows said. “The First Amendment protects your right to have any bumper sticker you want, but it doesn’t force the state to issue official registration plates that subject children in our communities to obscenity or profanity.”

The proposed rule still needs to go through a public comment process, but the document puts the state one step closer to taking vulgar or derogatory tags off the road.

The rule sets out the standards and the review process for new vanity plate applications. It also codifies the processes for making a complaint about an existing plate and for appealing a recall.

A Vanity Plate Review Committee made up of staff from the Division of Vehicle Services will review the messages “from the perspective of an ordinary observer of the plate.” They’ll consult a variety of resources, including Urban Dictionary (a crowdsourced online dictionary for words and phrases) and an actual dictionary. Didn’t mean it that way? Doesn’t matter.

The committee will recall or reject plates that:
falsely suggest an association with a public institution or a government or a government agency;
duplicate another plate;
encourage violence or that may result in an act of violence or other unlawful activity because of the content of the language or configuration of letters and numbers;
are profane or obscene;
make a derogatory reference to age, race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry or national origin, religion or physical or mental disability;
connote genitalia or relate to sexual acts;
contain language or a configuration of characters that include forms of slang terms, abbreviations, phonetic spellings, or mirror images of a word or term otherwise prohibited by this section, even if expressed in a language other than English.

If your current plate gets recalled, you’ll get notice by mail and have 14 days to request a hearing or apply for a different vanity plate. If you don’t, you’ll automatically get a new registration and boring standard plate.

Emily Cook, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office, said no plates have been recalled yet and none will be until the rule is implemented. She couldn’t say for sure how many might be, but Bellows told the Legislature that a cursory search of the more than 119,000 vanity plates on the road found at least 119 that included the most common “four-letter” words.

Maine relaxed its rules for vanity plates in 2015. It stopped screening for general vulgarity and instead only rejected or recalled plates if they were likely to incite violence. For example, a racial slur or a Nazi slogan would still get you in trouble. The term then-Secretary of State Matt Dunlap used for those plates was “fighting words.” Dunlap didn’t believe the screening process used in Maine could survive a legal challenge.

But a steady stream of complaints prompted lawmakers to crack down, and the Legislature crafted this bill last year with an eye toward lawsuits. Bellows, a former executive director of the ACLU of Maine who took over from Dunlap in 2021, supported the change.

In other states, courts have struck down rules for being too vague or arbitrary. New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that regulations barring a man from getting a “COPSLIE” plate violated his free-speech rights. New Hampshire now uses a standard that sets more specific limits, like in the new Maine law.

If you would like to submit comments on the proposed rule, you can do so until 5 p.m. on June 6. They can be emailed to [email protected], using the subject line “Public Comment, or mailed to the Secretary of State, Attn: Public Comment, 148 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0148. Written comments also can be dropped off at 103 Sewall St. in Augusta, at the office on the second floor of the Nash School Building.
 
📱 Fish Smarter with the NYAngler App!
Launch Now

Members online

No members online now.

Fishing Reports

Latest articles

Back
Top