New National Park near Baxter State Park?

[Offshore]

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?

So you're really comparing operating a dump, scrapyard, and tire incineration facility to a park? Wow - someone's getting a bit unhinged. But to humor you in your desperation, even in Maine there are laws that govern landfills and maybe even scrap yards and waste incineration. If you are in full compliance with those laws, then the answer is yes, you can do exactly that. If not, then the answer is no.

[egilbe]

The point was, that because it's her land, she can do what she wants with it. That is patently untrue. No one can do what they want on their property without it affecting other people surrounding the property which is the point of the entire thread.

It may be Roxanne Quimby's property, but the neighbors, in this case the people of Maine, do have a say in what happens on that property.

[rafe]

So? Baxter is a model all parks should strive to be. Self supporting. No commercialism. How can the Feds not do the same thing with all their jewels in the national park system?

Baxter is remote and very limited access. I'm not sure those are ideal attributes for a National Park.

[peakbagger]

One example of how a federal designation on one piece of property can impact the neighbors of adjoining lands is air permitting. Any business within 50 miles of a national park or a designated NF wilderness area subject to air permitting has to get approval from the federal government as part of the air permitting process and has to meet special standards. This adds a lot of extra time and hassle to the process and ultimately the federal land manager can delay it out of existence. This is factored in by firms when they think about locating or expanding. Its a subtle process, industry moves away and is replaced by tourist businesses. Tourist businesses need a cheap source of local labor so they really don't want the competition of year round business. Eventually the tourist businesses run out of locals at remote parks and have to set up tent cities to import labor to the region.

One of the interesting points regarding Acadia that Roxanne Quimby cares to ignore is that the Jackson Lab was created as a clean industry and source of jobs to complement the park by local supporters. Throw in some sort of complementary development creating year round jobs near MWNP so that the area doesn't become dependent upon tourists dollars driving into and out of the park and there may be more support by the locals. Roxanne was asked in public about investing in businesses to create jobs in the area and that's not on her agenda.

[Offshore]

The point was, that because it's her land, she can do what she wants with it. That is patently untrue. No one can do what they want on their property without it affecting other people surrounding the property which is the point of the entire thread.

It may be Roxanne Quimby's property, but the neighbors, in this case the people of Maine, do have a say in what happens on that property.

And a hyperbolic point it was... She may *lawfully* do with her property what is legal. If deeding her private property for use as a park violates no law, she's in the clear to start the process. Cranky neighbors don't meet the test of illegality.

Just be honest and have the courage of your convictions and just come out and say that you want to have full and free recreational use of some else's private property without paying taxes or insurance, and without having to worry about the expense of maintaining it - and furthermore you want it for yourself and maybe a few other locals with no pesky tourists (who should stay the heck down on Route 1 and at LL Bean). And , by the way, nobody better set foot on your land while you're freeloading on you neighbor's land.

[The Scribe]

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.

Amen! I am ambivalent I guess to this proposal. But I couldn't have said this better myself. If the locals don't want it, who am I tell to them they do? I will continue to love the Maine North Woods whether it is a NP or not. And if Quimby holds on to the land and restricts it's use like she has done in the past, I will find somewhere else to go where she doesn't control it. Now, this side step to at least get it made a National Monument is ruffling feathers. All it takes is an executive order by the president. And supporters hope it will grease the skids for NP designation down the road.

[Sparkeh]

Hear, hear.

[burger]

Just be honest and have the courage of your convictions and just come out and say that you want to have full and free recreational use of some else's private property without paying taxes or insurance, and without having to worry about the expense of maintaining it - and furthermore you want it for yourself and maybe a few other locals with no pesky tourists (who should stay the heck down on Route 1 and at LL Bean). And , by the way, nobody better set foot on your land while you're freeloading on you neighbor's land.

Yep. I don't think I've seen a single honest comment from the anti-park folks. They keep throwing up different things. First, peakbagger said the park would bring too much crowding. Now he's changed his tune and wants year-round development instead of summertime-only visitors. And apparently the park is going to ruin the area's "industry" (what industry?) by requiring harmful air pollution to be limited.

There is only one real argument against the park underneath all these trappings: me, me, me, me, my forest (even if owned by someone else), me, me, me. Anti-park people, you can dress up your arguments all you want, but underneath it's all selfishness. Like I said a while back, if locals got their way, there would not be one single national park in the US. That would be a terrible legacy.

[The Scribe]

There is only one real argument against the park underneath all these trappings: me, me, me, me, my forest (even if owned by someone else), me, me, me. Anti-park people, you can dress up your arguments all you want, but underneath it's all selfishness. Like I said a while back, if locals got their way, there would not be one single national park in the US. That would be a terrible legacy.

Thanks for knowing what I am thinking Burger. While I said I am ambivalent, I guess, since I don't feel I have a right to tell those in the area what they want or not, I guess that makes me against it although if it goes through I will probably do nothing more than shrug. Nothing selfish about it. It's a large tract of land with really no natural draw. There is no magnificent coast (Acadia). No big hole in the ground (Grand Canyon). No majestic valleys (Yosemite). No large trees (Redwoods). No historic value (Lowell for example). The biggest view (Katahdin) won't even be part of it or accessible unless the visitor jumps through the BSP hoops as well as the NPS. It is wilderness. It is undeveloped wilderness. For the most part, the people that go there will continue to go there regardless of what ends up happening. And the people that don't, won't. Nothing selfish about it Burger.

[rickb]

I think it worth mentioning that the person on the ground spearheading the park initiative is a thru hiker and the brother of another thruhiker.

Its also worth mentioning that the woman who wishes to donate some 100,000 acres of land together with a $40 million endowment support management of that land is the mother of two thru hikers.

A new national park would not be good for the AT, it would be great for the AT.

[BlackCloud]

The founders of the National Park Service examined the North Maine Woods in 1918 and rejected it. Park administrators again rejected it in the 60's. The reasons were the same.

In a letter to Director Mather Albright, Sec. of Interior Franklin Lane wrote:

"In studying new park projects, you should seek to find scenery of supreme and distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of national interest and importance...The NPS as now constituted should not be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent."

The strategy of Environmentalists appears to be to afford every acre of undeveloped woods the highest level of legal protection by making them national parks and/or wilderness areas. Make this area a National Forest if anything.

[burger]

"In studying new park projects, you should seek to find scenery of supreme and distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of national interest and importance...The NPS as now constituted should not be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent."

The strategy of Environmentalists appears to be to afford every acre of undeveloped woods the highest level of legal protection by making them national parks and/or wilderness areas. Make this area a National Forest if anything.

Of course, in the 1910s and even the 1960s we were quite ignorant about science and ecology, and the government was only interested in protecting scenery. Now, we realize that biodiversity and even just the opportunity for quiet, unspoiled nature are worth protecting, too. Heck, we have a number of NPS units today that are mostly grassland or swamp or desert without a lot of scenery. There's a lot more to the world than scenery. And you're comment is especially ironic on an AT forum given that 95%+ of that trail is viewless woods.

If you want to stick with a 1960s or 1910s view of the world, you're free to. But the rest of us have moved on.

[Skyline]

Of course, in the 1910s and even the 1960s we were quite ignorant about science and ecology, and the government was only interested in protecting scenery. Now, we realize that biodiversity and even just the opportunity for quiet, unspoiled nature are worth protecting, too. Heck, we have a number of NPS units today that are mostly grassland or swamp or desert without a lot of scenery. There's a lot more to the world than scenery. And you're comment is especially ironic on an AT forum given that 95%+ of that trail is viewless woods.

If you want to stick with a 1960s or 1910s view of the world, you're free to. But the rest of us have moved on.

So, you speak for "the rest of us?" Doubtful, but we can let that slide...

From a practical sense, there aren't going to be any more expansive national parks like Yellowstone or even Shenandoah under the current political climate. But there could be more national forests, because there are more and diverse constituencies that will support that, including the constituencies that use this forum. Together, they (we) have enough clout to influence federal and state governments to make it happen where feasible. The North Woods is a place where a big(ish) national forest could be feasible.

Yes, these constituencies sometimes include hunters, equestrians, loggers, drillers, skiers, snowmobilers, etc. It also include us hikers and backpackers. (Smart management halts things like clear-cutting.) We already co-exist fairly well in many national forests, including some the AT is routed through.

One thing national forests tend to accomplish is to halt, or at least significantly slow, development of prime mountain and forest real estate by Trump-like moguls who only want to exploit and change the land forever.

The best thing is that within national forests, with a lot of grassroots efforts, the best of the best land can be designated as official Wilderness Area, or at least official National Recreation Areas. Such designations come close to protecting lands in the way that national parks do. Not the same, but sort of the same. It is here that prime hiking trails might be possible. Some may already exist. Even in the non-designated parts of national forests, good -- even great -- trails exist.

[The Scribe]

The founders of the National Park Service examined the North Maine Woods in 1918 and rejected it. Park administrators again rejected it in the 60's. The reasons were the same.

In a letter to Director Mather Albright, Sec. of Interior Franklin Lane wrote:

"In studying new park projects, you should seek to find scenery of supreme and distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of national interest and importance...The NPS as now constituted should not be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent."

Thank you BlackCloud. I have read this before and wish I had thought of it as part of my last post. National Forest might be a better choice. No one complains that the WMNF isn't a National Park. At least not that I've ever heard. But since that's not what Quimby wants, it's not being discussed. She has to deal with the perception that she has been a bully in the past regarding her land and is continuing to be one.

[burger]

Thank you BlackCloud. I have read this before and wish I had thought of it as part of my last post. National Forest might be a better choice. No one complains that the WMNF isn't a National Park. At least not that I've ever heard. But since that's not what Quimby wants, it's not being discussed. She has to deal with the perception that she has been a bully in the past regarding her land and is continuing to be one.

I can't speak for the landowners, but I strongly suspect that they are familiar with national forests (remember, the son of the current owner is a former thru-hiker and has hiked through a bunch of national forests). Anyone who has spent much time on the national forests knows that they are not well managed. There is excessive logging in many places, excessive road building, and little consideration for biodiversity, as the forests are supposed to be a "land of many uses." I'm sure national forest designation would make the selfish locals happy, as they could continue to hunt and snowmobile for free on someone else's property. But it does not sound compatible with the landowners' stated desire for long-term preservation.

You know why people don't complain about the WMNF not being a national park? Most of the areas visited by people are wilderness or managed as such. I've seen the clearcuts and logging scars, but you have to go well off the AT and frequently visited paths to do so. Wilderness designation would be possible for Quimby's land, but it takes an act of Congres, and with the House controlled by anti-environmental forces, it's not happening.

Also, who gives a damn if the owners are perceived as bullies? It's their land, and they can do what they want with it. The "perception" of selfish people living nearby is not the owners' problem so long as they are not breaking the law.

[The Scribe]

I can't speak for the landowners, but I strongly suspect that they are familiar with national forests (remember, the son of the current owner is a former thru-hiker and has hiked through a bunch of national forests). Anyone who has spent much time on the national forests knows that they are not well managed. There is excessive logging in many places, excessive road building, and little consideration for biodiversity, as the forests are supposed to be a "land of many uses." I'm sure national forest designation would make the selfish locals happy, as they could continue to hunt and snowmobile for free on someone else's property. But it does not sound compatible with the landowners' stated desire for long-term preservation.

You know why people don't complain about the WMNF not being a national park? Most of the areas visited by people are wilderness or managed as such. I've seen the clearcuts and logging scars, but you have to go well off the AT and frequently visited paths to do so. Wilderness designation would be possible for Quimby's land, but it takes an act of Congres, and with the House controlled by anti-environmental forces, it's not happening.

Also, who gives a damn if the owners are perceived as bullies? It's their land, and they can do what they want with it. The "perception" of selfish people living nearby is not the owners' problem so long as they are not breaking the law.

Burger, man, you love the word "selfish." I think "selfish" is when you try to force your views and desires on people that don't want them. But that's just me. I honestly don't know what's in Quimby's head other than she wants a National Park. Maybe she has articulated her thoughts on a national forest v. national park. If she has, it isn't something I have seen or read. Would love to read it if its out there.

Honestly didn't know Lucas and his brother were thru-hikers. But how this extrapolates out to their mother kinda baffles me though. I've met plenty of thru-hikers whose parents didn't have a clue as to what it was about or didn't understand or see what their kids did to make them hike. There are plenty of thru-hikers that don't care or understand what it's all about. Shrugs. She is in the position she is in because she met Burt and started selling his products and was successful at it. Then took over the company and lived the American Dream. Very happy for her in that regard.

Who gives a damn about the owners being perceived as bullies? Well, maybe the owners should. Because if you find yourself in the position of having to win over people you've bullied, maybe you will wish you took a softer road to that point?

Sometimes I wonder if you don't hold an option on land in the Millinocket area, prime for a resort or theme park or something to entertain the "hordes" of people that will descend on Maine Woods National Park. Just kidding. Sort of.

Peace.

[burger]

Because if you find yourself in the position of having to win over people you've bullied, maybe you will wish you took a softer road to that point?

Explain to me why locals should get veto rights over any national park. Remember, pretty much every park in history has been oppoesed by locals and local businesses. If we took permission of locals as a requirement to protect land, we would have zero national parks. Well, maybe a few in Alaska.

Sometimes I wonder if you don't hold an option on land in the Millinocket area, prime for a resort or theme park or something to entertain the "hordes" of people that will descend on Maine Woods National Park. Just kidding. Sort of.

Real funny. Unlike the selfish people opposing the park, I believe in something more than my own narrow interests. If I owned any substantial area of land, I would already have donated it to a land trust or the governemnt. I would love to win the lottery some day so I can buy up a bunch of private land and donate it, even if it meant I could never set foot on it again. Some things are more important that being able to hunt and snowmobile.

[The Scribe]

"Real funny. Unlike the selfish people opposing the park, I believe in something more than my own narrow interests. If I owned any substantial area of land, I would already have donated it to a land trust or the governemnt. I would love to win the lottery some day so I can buy up a bunch of private land and donate it, even if it meant I could never set foot on it again. Some things are more important that being able to hunt and snowmobile."

I admire your principles. Hope you can live that dream someday. And I hope you don't find yourself in the opposition to some type of development/activity/proposal where you are. I will continue to learn about this initiative as I live in Maine (but hours away from the land in question) but other than that, I am moving on. Peace.

[Peaks]

Well, for what it's worth, I listened to a lot of discussion about this proposal at the Northeast Alpine Steward Gathering in Millinocket last November. Other than locking up the land from private development, no one seems to see a good reason for a National Park here. And they do not think that national park status will be a draw for tourism. I think we should listed to what people like Scribe says. he is the local here. Most of us are from out of state.

[OPI]

Baxter is remote and very limited access. I'm not sure those are ideal attributes for a National Park.

Isle Royale National Park.... Remote and with limited access. just how I like them