New National Park near Baxter State Park?

[peakbagger]

Welcome to MWNP where the majority of the attractions are outside of the park boundary and off limits.

[Uriah]

National parks are America's "best idea," according to Stegner. I wouldn't go that far, but few decisions allow for both land/habitat preservation and a boon to the local economy, as nearly every national park 'feasibility' study has shown. (The real financial gains are of course reserved for the oil and auto industries.)

In the meantime, Millinocket continues its slow, steady descent toward oblivion. The only thing breathing any life into it at this stage is the AT, and the one or two businesses wise enough to cater to its users; predictably, the Pelletier 'American Loggers' Family Restaurant folded last year, another victim of outmoded, archaic thinking. At this stage the few remaining locals might want to engage in some serious thinking, rather than in opinionated, uneducated rebellion. But then again, if they prefer to live quietly and in isolation, watching as more residents leave for greener pastures, proffering even more peacefulness, I can relate.

[burger]

Unfortunately a working forest doesn't meet the idealized image of what a tourist wants to see, logging is messy in the short term but the resultant regrowth is where much of the wildlife resides. The Lynx is back in Maine mostly due to clearcuts which open up the preferred habitat of their main food source snowshoe hares which thrive in regrowth. Songbirds tend to also like this regrowth habitat. The other ugly truth is the Maine woods are not static, fir and spruce stands have a limited life based on marginal soils and when they get over mature the spruce budworm visits and wipes out hundreds of thousands of acres. I was in high school when the budworm last hit the region but I remember climbing katahdin and seeing the telltale red woods left when entire stands are dead and rotting in place.

Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife), and you are flat wrong. Thanks to all the logging on private lands, there is no shortage of young forest in Maine. What there is a shortage of is mature forest left untouched and allowed to reach maturity. Like young forest, old forest also has a number of unique species. But most forests in Maine are logged on short rotations so the forests never reach maturity.

As for spruce budworm eventually wiping out the forests, that's not even true. There are periodic budworm outbreaks, but they don't kill all the trees. And when a natural outbreak happens, it's natural and not something to be avoided. No one who knows anything about ecology would say that we should log the forests to prevent a natural disturbance. If the budworm comes and kills large numbers of trees, it's the same result anyway. But unlike logging, budworm outbreaks are actually fantastic for mature forest birds, which come in huge numbers to affected areas and raise lots of young off that huge food resource. Also budworm outbreaks leave behind tons of nutrients that help to build up the soil. Logging takes all of that away and compacts the soils when vehicles run over everything. Plus the logged areas are often planted with a monoculture of trees and herbicides are used to suppress broad-leafed trees like birches that are less valuable. Budworm outbreaks let the forest regenerate itself with more diversity.

No one said that forests are static. But it would be nice to have a few places in Maine where the natural processes are allowed to happen without people coming in every few decades and logging all the trees. The argument that we shouldn't have a national park because we somehow need more logging is simply ignorant.

[Pedaling Fool]

Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife), and you are flat wrong. Thanks to all the logging on private lands, there is no shortage of young forest in Maine. What there is a shortage of is mature forest left untouched and allowed to reach maturity. Like young forest, old forest also has a number of unique species. But most forests in Maine are logged on short rotations so the forests never reach maturity.

As for spruce budworm eventually wiping out the forests, that's not even true. There are periodic budworm outbreaks, but they don't kill all the trees. And when a natural outbreak happens, it's natural and not something to be avoided. No one who knows anything about ecology would say that we should log the forests to prevent a natural disturbance. If the budworm comes and kills large numbers of trees, it's the same result anyway. But unlike logging, budworm outbreaks are actually fantastic for mature forest birds, which come in huge numbers to affected areas and raise lots of young off that huge food resource. Also budworm outbreaks leave behind tons of nutrients that help to build up the soil. Logging takes all of that away and compacts the soils when vehicles run over everything. Plus the logged areas are often planted with a monoculture of trees and herbicides are used to suppress broad-leafed trees like birches that are less valuable. Budworm outbreaks let the forest regenerate itself with more diversity.

No one said that forests are static. But it would be nice to have a few places in Maine where the natural processes are allowed to happen without people coming in every few decades and logging all the trees. The argument that we shouldn't have a national park because we somehow need more logging is simply ignorant.

So what's the deal?

Are fungi the reason we don't have more coal or not?

This says we would have much more coal if it were not for white rot fungi: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...oal-formation/

However, this very recent article says that it's a "neat story", but that's about it, just a story.... http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...e-all-at-once/

[burger]

So what's the deal?

Are fungi the reason we don't have more coal or not?

This says we would have much more coal if it were not for white rot fungi: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...oal-formation/

However, this very recent article says that it's a "neat story", but that's about it, just a story.... http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...e-all-at-once/

I have no idea what you're talking nor what this has to do with the Maine national park.

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

Hi, I'm an actual ecologist.........

That's nice, but it doesn't mean you're smarter than anybody else.

.............screw the ignorant locals.

.............is simply ignorant.

Twice in the same discussion you refer to those who don't see things your way as ignorant.


May I suggest you might be more successful in persuading people that your ecology degree is of inherent value and your opinions are thus more meaningful if you were to refrain from puffing up about the degree (we get it--you've told us repeatedly you have a degree in ecology) within a discussion in which you repeatedly call people who don't agree with you ignorant.

One attracts flies with honey. Getting your point across normally requires not insulting the listener right from the start.

AO

[peakbagger]

If the desire is to maintain a mature forest untouched forever why go to the extra hassle of making a national park?. There are plenty of entities that would gladly hold a wilderness preservation easement on the land that the owner would like to donate. The Nature Conservancy owns Big Reed township and manages it as an old growth forest for what I expect to be a lot less cost as they intentional rarely even publicize it. If the MWNP becomes a national park, staffing and infrastructure has to move in to support it and I expect the much publicized endowment will be long gone just to cover the infrastructure needs. Far better to put an easement on it, remove the access roads and let it sit.

I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. Maybe some local will make it big in country music and build Gatlinburg north on the way in .

[burger]

Hi, I'm an actual ecologist.........

That's nice, but it doesn't mean you're smarter than anybody else.

.............screw the ignorant locals.

.............is simply ignorant.

Twice in the same discussion you refer to those who don't see things your way as ignorant.


May I suggest you might be more successful in persuading people that your ecology degree is of inherent value and your opinions are thus more meaningful if you were to refrain from puffing up about the degree (we get it--you've told us repeatedly you have a degree in ecology) within a discussion in which you repeatedly call people who don't agree with you ignorant.

One attracts flies with honey. Getting your point across normally requires not insulting the listener right from the start.

AO

Yawn, I've heard this before, and I really don't care. I am old enough to know that my internet scribblings will not persuade any true believers about the park to change their minds. And I'm fine with that. Numerous studies have shown that people with strong beliefs double down on those beliefs when presented with accurate, contradictory evidence. But when I see someone claiming that science supports the anti-park position, I'm going to call BS there and correct them. I don't expect peakbagger to change his/her mind, but for others who might be on the fence or supporting the park I would like them to know that science does not support peakbagger's conclusions.

As for ignorance, I never said I was smarter than anyone--those are your words. But I am almost certainly more educated almost anyone on logging and ecology in New England. And I call people or their ideas ignorant because they lack knowledge--that's the definition of the word. It doesn't mean someone is dumb, just ill-informed. That's no surprise given the quality of our education system and the quality of media reporting on science issues. The internet does not help because it is full of incorrect or biased information. Not everyone can spend the amount of time I do reading about science. I am ignorant about plenty of subjects and happy to admit it. But logging and forest ecology is not one of those subjects.

BTW, I still maintain that locals almost everywhere are ignorant about the benefits of parks and, more importantly, selfish, as others have pointed out. If someone wants to argue that the park is going to ruin their quality of life, that's a fine (but selfish) argument. But if someone wants to argue that science says a park is a bad idea, that's just ignorant.

[burger]

If the desire is to maintain a mature forest untouched forever why go to the extra hassle of making a national park?. There are plenty of entities that would gladly hold a wilderness preservation easement on the land that the owner would like to donate. The Nature Conservancy owns Big Reed township and manages it as an old growth forest for what I expect to be a lot less cost as they intentional rarely even publicize it. If the MWNP becomes a national park, staffing and infrastructure has to move in to support it and I expect the much publicized endowment will be long gone just to cover the infrastructure needs. Far better to put an easement on it, remove the access roads and let it sit.

I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. Maybe some local will make it big in country music and build Gatlinburg north on the way in .

First, TNC and other land trusts cannot protect land permanently. The protection would only last as long as the organization does. Easements are not permanent and can be broken at any time by paying back taxes. There was a long article about this in High Country News a few years back.

As for National Park status, the idea that a small NPS unit with relatively little scenery and far from any cities or airports would attract millions of visitors and spawn a huge gateway town is utterly ridiculous. Have you been to any parks besides the Smokies? There are small parks in the NP system that have minimal development, no major gateway town, and relatively few visitors. Off the top of my head, Capitol Reef, Black Canyon, and Great Sand Dunes all have a small footprint and small gateway towns. There are a bunch of national monuments that also have small footprints, inside the park and out. The argument that millions of people are going to descend on a medium-sized patch of woods in the middle of nowhere that is covered with snow for half the year and overrun with bugs the other half and create Gatlinburg 2 is silly.

You're really grasping at straws here. If you just want to have the woods to yourself and keep "outsiders" away then just admit it.

[OCDave]

Per capita, Maine ranks 43 in federal tax revenue raising just a bit more than $4300 per citizen. The fed returns more than $12000 per citizen to the state of Maine in Federal spending ( a deficit of near $8000 for each citizen of the state).

Maine, you are broken. Keep doing what you're doing and the rest of us will continue to carry you. Or, maybe do something different and start carrying your own water.

Dringo? Really?

[egilbe]

Per capita, Maine ranks 43 in federal tax revenue raising just a bit more than $4300 per citizen. The fed returns more than $12000 per citizen to the state of Maine in Federal spending ( a deficit of near $8000 for each citizen of the state).

Maine, you are broken. Keep doing what you're doing and the rest of us will continue to carry you. Or, maybe do something different and start carrying your own water.

Dringo? Really?

Its awesome that you quote that when the vast majority of fed spending in Maine is Bath Iron Works and Portsmouth Navel Shipyard.

[Pedaling Fool]

...nor what this has to do with the Maine national park.

That ship sailed a long time ago, this thread is way off course from the OP.

I have no idea what you're talking...

Wow and you say this: "Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife..."



Yeah, OK, whatever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ

[burger]

That ship sailed a long time ago, this thread is way off course from the OP.

Wow and you say this: "Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife..."

So, because I'm an ecologist, I'm supposed to know about how coal is formed? That's geology, dude.

[Pedaling Fool]

So, because I'm an ecologist, I'm supposed to know about how coal is formed? That's geology, dude.

You as an "actual ecologist" should know that there are no clear lines that separate many sciences. My question wasn't just about coal, it dealt with evolution and interactions between different organisms. I didn't really expect you to know the correct answer, just curious of your position.

You failed miserably. If you are an "actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years...", then I do have to question your knowledge in your field. I'm not impressed...

[burger]

You as an "actual ecologist" should know that there are no clear lines that separate many sciences. My question wasn't just about coal, it dealt with evolution and interactions between different organisms. I didn't really expect you to know the correct answer, just curious of your position.

You failed miserably. If you are an "actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years...", then I do have to question your knowledge in your field. I'm not impressed...

I always get a good laugh when non-scientists try to question my knowledge about my speciality. Please tell me the exact reason why I need to understand coal formation in order to be an expert on the ecology of early-successional forests in New England. I see zero connection. If I tried to publish a paper on coal formation in an ecology journal I would get laughed out of the room.

Ecology and geology are different fields. The fact that you say there are no clear lines does not make it true.

If you'd like to insult me further, please PM me so people can discuss the Maine park in this thread.

[Skyline]

Has anyone explored the idea of a national forest, instead of a national park? Could that be a fallback compromise?

USFS national forests operate under a very different set of rules and priorities than do national parks. More uses are permitted, some of which might not be appealing to everyone here. But the AT and many other great trails are at least partially routed through national forests, and for the most part a diversity of users learn to coexist well enough.

So long as logging and other resource extractions are based on what's good for the forest, not a company's bottom line, that seems to work well enough in many national forests. They do control who does what, when -- often through auctions which specify many details of what is and isn't permitted, when it can be done, etc.

Also, hunting and other recreational activities including equestrian, ORV traveling, bicycling, snowmobiling, etc. would no doubt be permitted but in some cases some trails can be designated exclusively or primarily for hikers.

Just an idea. Has it been considered or researched?

[Mags]

I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. .

Gatlinburg, Estes Park, Moab, et al.

Abbey called it Industrial Tourism.

I think a MWNP itself would be a good thing. What worries me is what you alluded that happens around the park.

Mixed blessings indeed. No simple answer either.

As for National Park status, the idea that a small NPS unit with relatively little scenery and far from any cities or airports would attract millions of visitors and spawn a huge gateway town is utterly ridiculous.

Millions? No. But a national park does impact the area quite a bit even more so than a national monument designation. Moab was a sleepy little town. So was Jackson, WY.

Interesting video...

Has anyone explored the idea of a national forest, instead of a national park? Could that be a fallback compromise?

Interesting idea. In this high charged political discussion, not sure if would be considered unfortunately.

[rickb]

Giant paper companies haven't owned the maine woods for about 15 to 20 years.

Fair point. I recall you correcting me on that some time (years) back and no doubt my characterization was simplistic. But the fact remains that ownership is changing and changing fast and seeing some swaths protected by a diversity of organizations is good, I think.

To my way of thinking, having some small portion of the lands protected by the AMC or by a private individual whose preference is to have thier personal property given to, and administered by, the Natioanl Park Service is a good thing. This is not Restore taking over humongous tracts using taxpayer monies.

But this is an AT site, so I just want to state again how great I think the park would be for the trail.

Baxter State Park is wonderful beyond words, but routing the AT to a National Park and connecting it to the IAT would be something special for generations. IT would be transformative in a great way, and address so many issues that are now of concern-- and do what parks do best -- bring Americans and people from all over the world out to enjoy what we love so much.

Easements offered up by Weyerhouser are just not the same -- even if they cover 4x as many acres as this park.

[Heliotrope]

I think one the comments on the Post website sums it up really well:

"Property rights advocates don't want a property owner to do what she wants with her land, so that they can do what they want with her land, which they call "our land." "

Exactly my thought!

[egilbe]

Including Mainers that believe they have rights on anothers property.

So if I bought property next to your house, I can start a junkyard there, dump trash and burn tires on my property, just because its my property, correct?