There was a lot of good information presented and many questions answered last week Wednesday at the “scoping meeting” for the proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.

About 200 people representing various interests gathered  at the Kissimmee Civic Center for the meeting and most were there to learn. However, some comments were just mean and shortsighted – like the one telling the federal employees conducting the meeting to pack up their maps and illustrations and go home or that they weren’t welcome south of the Florida-Georgia state line.

While the various interests in this issue may not agree with the need for a new wildlife refuge in Florida, at least we can discuss the pros and cons of the proposal sensibly and with respect.

The point emphasized again and again at the meeting – which seemed hard for opponents to accept – was that the 50,000-acre refuge would be established on land obtained from willing sellers. Plus, a 100,000-acre buffer area around the refuge would be established using conservation easements of one type or another. Those easements also would be obtained from willing participants.

The goals of the federal government in establishing the new refuge should be our goals, too: restoration of the Everglades watershed; preserve habitat for endangered species; improve water quality; provide connective corridors between existing refuges and protected areas; provide recreation; foster wildlife education; and preserve ranching and agriculture. Who can argue against that?

From our point of view, worries by those involved in “traditional recreation” in the region are overblown. The state’s navigable waterways will still be navigable and there will be fishing and hunting opportunities on the refuge. There also would be opportunities for the public to view wildlife in locations that previously were in private hands.

As far as taking property off the tax rolls, officials said the revenue lost from the purchase of the 50,000 acres spread over five counties would not exceed $120,000 total. And then there would be partial reimbursement of the loss through a federal program.

We aren’t going to lose with this refuge – we have a lot to gain from it. And as Eugene Stoccardo, of Orlando, said, “This is the only game we have now to save farms and ranches.”