John Keim wrote:

> As the conversation progressed, he began questioning where our yards were,
> and indicated he would like to inspect them, and that he also wants an
> interview with me.  He said we were the only ones he had contacted that use
> them in the sate (which I find hard to believe.)
>
> I am going to contact the State Inspector before I call him back, but I was
> wondering if anyone else had an experience like this, and am trying to
> anticipate where this could lead. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.

The first option is not to bother to call back. It sounds like a fishing
expedition and they usually end up with something being caught - in this
case, you no matter how innocent you may think you are. The next is to
be too busy or away and they are not allowed to inspect without you
being there. Stonewall.

Once, a long time ago, I would have recommended cooperation, but no
longer. I allowed a benign group from the State to inspect the
waterfront of our home. No one else in the area did. I strongly support
proper safeguards to the environment. They reported out that there were
some endangered species in the tidal area, but it was no big deal
because they were only endangered because it was the northern limit of
their habitat. Lots of them down south. In all it was a good, balanced
report.

But. The local environmental fanatics got hold of it, twisted it and
effectively rammed through a set of ordinances which limit my use of my
land ( and I am the chairman of the zoning board!). We were able to keep
it fairly reasonable, but in an adjacent town, it became draconian.
Never again will I cooperate with the State.

When the Alar scare hit, many apple growers in Maine cooperated with the
State and provided them with their spraying schedule. The State made it
public, the fanatics blacklisted the growers and no one bought their
apples. Several went out of business. Those who sprayed -even contrary
to directions- but did not cooperate, were fine and sold all their
apples.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME