Another Maine National Park?

[woodsy]

Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?

According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged to reporters Monday afternoon that a freeze on new construction across the National Park System would slow efforts to reduce the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which is in the neighborhood of $8 billion.

[woodsy]

Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?

According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged to reporters Monday afternoon that a freeze on new construction across the National Park System would slow efforts to reduce the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which is in the neighborhood of $8 billion.

[mudhead]

Ya stuttering?



Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.

Unless you really want a new one.

Bunch of stimulus money went to put in fish friendly culverts in a stream that dead ends in a bog. That stream is not flowing now as it is quite dry. As in seasonal.

Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?

[weary]

Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?

I know what you mean. I've worked for large private corporations also.

[TheRaven]

Ya stuttering?



Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.

Unless you really want a new one.

Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?

Sounds like Maine schools, Nice historic schools shut down because the boards refuse to put a dime into them. They get "deadly" mold and a new multi-million tax payer funded school gets built. Damn I'm happy I don't pay taxes anymore.

[Bucherm]

Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?

According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.

So? Set up a private-Public trust like they did with the Presidio of SF. Obviously any "Maine Woods" NP wouldn't have a bunch of army buildings to be leased out, but it also wouldn't have the costs entailed with a urban park. Some people will whine about it not being a "pure" National Park, but it's better than none. Turn it into a National Rec Area.

[woodsy]

Area voters overwhelmingly reject proposed North Maine Woods National Park feasibility study.

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/0...ibility-study/

[burger]

Area voters overwhelmingly reject proposed North Maine Woods National Park feasibility study.

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/0...ibility-study/

Wow, I hadn't realized that the U.S. Constitution allows 640 voters in a tiny town in Maine to overrule the federal government. I guess all plans for the park have to be scrapped now.

(Snark aside, who cares? Locals always oppose the designation of new parks and monuments beforehand. After the fact, though, they're happy about the jobs and money that parks and monuments bring.)

[peakbagger]

I am late to the thread but I have a few comments.

The proposed area is to the east of Baxter State Park and has been cut heavillly, its quite obvious on google earth. There are "beauty strips" along water bodies, but 90% is cut over land. Possibly someone's grandchild reading this thread will see a regenerated Maine woods grown up on the property but for most folks its going to be thick alder thickets for the foreseable future. Although the east branch of the Penobscot runs through the area, the really impressive territory is to the west in Baxter State Park.

Baxter State Park is managed under a set of strict deeds of trust established by Percival Baxter, the person who gave the park to the state. Barring a forced federal government takeover of the park, it will never be part of the proposed national park. Just think someone drives 500 miles to the new national park and are told that they can spend all the time they like in a alder thicket but cant cross into the adjoining state park with all the mountains and scenery.

Maine has a lot of preserved land but it is mostly preserved as working forest with some high value areas set aside. Even the nature conservancy owns a large block along the St John river that is harvested. Unfortunately I have not seen any good online maps that show all the preserved lands as they are owned by multiple owners under many different type of ownership. As the level and types of preservation varies, this is frequently used by park promoters to selectively point out that only a small percentage of Maine is "protected" by a park. When I see the reference to only one national park in the region, its specious as the White and Green Mountain national forests, as well as the AT corridor (officially National park service land) Moosehorn NWR are all managed similiar to a national park but are convieniently left out.

The proposed area east of the park is within the woodbasket of the Millinocket mills which were the economic lifeblood of the region. The prior owner was a hydroelectric firm that had no interest in making investments in woodproducts and finally shut them the mills down after neglecting them for several years. A new firm has bought the facility and is planning to substantially increase prodiction and employment in the area. Unlike seasonal tourist jobs, the mill jobs pay more and have benefits. Living in a tourist area myself, there arent many folks who put their kids through school in the tourist business. Having a large block of preserved land on their doorstep is going to make thing harder for them to pull off the tunraround.

If the intent is to build wilderness rather than build up ones ego, have her donate the land to Baxter State Park and fund an endowment to fund it like Baxter did. The majority of the park is a wilderness game preserve with the exception of the Scientific Management Area so it would be as wild as a national park with less chance of political manipulation from Washington. Alternatively turn it into a National Wildlife refuge.

[weary]

I am late to the thread but I have a few comments.

The proposed area is to the east of Baxter State Park and has been cut heavillly, its quite obvious on google earth. There are "beauty strips" along water bodies, but 90% is cut over land. Possibly someone's grandchild reading this thread will see a regenerated Maine woods grown up on the property but for most folks its going to be thick alder thickets for the foreseable future. Although the east branch of the Penobscot runs through the area, the really impressive territory is to the west in Baxter State Park.

Baxter State Park is managed under a set of strict deeds of trust established by Percival Baxter, the person who gave the park to the state. Barring a forced federal government takeover of the park, it will never be part of the proposed national park. Just think someone drives 500 miles to the new national park and are told that they can spend all the time they like in a alder thicket but cant cross into the adjoining state park with all the mountains and scenery.

Maine has a lot of preserved land but it is mostly preserved as working forest with some high value areas set aside. Even the nature conservancy owns a large block along the St John river that is harvested. Unfortunately I have not seen any good online maps that show all the preserved lands as they are owned by multiple owners under many different type of ownership. As the level and types of preservation varies, this is frequently used by park promoters to selectively point out that only a small percentage of Maine is "protected" by a park. When I see the reference to only one national park in the region, its specious as the White and Green Mountain national forests, as well as the AT corridor (officially National park service land) Moosehorn NWR are all managed similiar to a national park but are convieniently left out.

The proposed area east of the park is within the woodbasket of the Millinocket mills which were the economic lifeblood of the region. The prior owner was a hydroelectric firm that had no interest in making investments in woodproducts and finally shut them the mills down after neglecting them for several years. A new firm has bought the facility and is planning to substantially increase prodiction and employment in the area. Unlike seasonal tourist jobs, the mill jobs pay more and have benefits. Living in a tourist area myself, there arent many folks who put their kids through school in the tourist business. Having a large block of preserved land on their doorstep is going to make thing harder for them to pull off the tunraround.

If the intent is to build wilderness rather than build up ones ego, have her donate the land to Baxter State Park and fund an endowment to fund it like Baxter did. The majority of the park is a wilderness game preserve with the exception of the Scientific Management Area so it would be as wild as a national park with less chance of political manipulation from Washington. Alternatively turn it into a National Wildlife refuge.

I know of no serious recent proposal to make Baxter a part of any of the proposed National Parks in Maine. But a large Maine Woods National Park, even without Baxter, would be the equal of any existing national park that I've seen -- and I've seen and hiked in most of them, from the Smokies to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite north to Olympia, and Rainier east to Acadia.

[takethisbread]

As an AT hiker my interest is mostly the impact on the trail. I've long argued that the trail in Maine is in need of help. My only hope that any national park would include Part of the trail, particularly the 100 mile section, bc the trail in Maine cannot be sufficiently maintained by unpaid volunteers, and trails in national parks generally feature better maintenance. I know none of this is likely to happen but it's a wish to improve the footing issues, the erosion issues and quality of the shelters in many areas of Maine AT. My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few.

[mudhead]

I know of no serious recent proposal to make Baxter a part of any of the proposed National Parks in Maine.

Don't be silly. Next you will be saying "I don't recall." I know of no recent drug use by any celebrities.

But a large Maine Woods National Park, even without Baxter, would be the equal of any existing national park that I've seen -- and I've seen and hiked in most of them, from the Smokies to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite north to Olympia, and Rainier east to Acadia.

You really are not making sense. The woods of inland Maine are interesting, and there are all sorts of wondrous places. Comparing them to some of the NPs in existence, or even to some of the Public Reserve Land in Maine, is addled.

[woodsy]

Wow, I hadn't realized that the U.S. Constitution allows 640 voters in a tiny town in Maine to overrule the federal government. I guess all plans for the park have to be scrapped now.

welcome to maine, "the way life should be !"

[Mountain Mike]

I would much prefer a Nat Forest to a park. Forests allow for multie use & far less camping rules than Nat Park.

[peakbagger]

With regards to the Takethisbreads comments about the 100 mile wilderness. The vast majority of the area is already protected from development "forever" by various entities, adding a national park designation if anything is going to increase usage not decrease usage.

[DavidNH]

I am not a Maine Resident but live in Neighboring New Hampshire. I LOVE the state of Maine. I think that a Maine Woods National Park would be a fantastic idea. As for the opposition, remember even Baxter State Park was opposed tooth an nail by the locals to the point that Governor Baxter had to buy up land secretly and then give it to the state (even perhaps less publicly that Roxanne Quimby is buying up land now). Fast forward to today.. Baxter State Park is incredibly popular and is probably responsible for keeping the nearby town of Millinocket from going bankrupt altogether.

OH I wish I had multiple millions even billions. If it were me, I'd buy up a swath from the North East Kingdom of VT through Coos Country and up the Maine Border to Fort Kent. I know that's not possible but a guy can dream can't he?

[weary]

As an AT hiker my interest is mostly the impact on the trail. I've long argued that the trail in Maine is in need of help. My only hope that any national park would include Part of the trail, particularly the 100 mile section, bc the trail in Maine cannot be sufficiently maintained by unpaid volunteers, and trails in national parks generally feature better maintenance. I know none of this is likely to happen but it's a wish to improve the footing issues, the erosion issues and quality of the shelters in many areas of Maine AT. My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few.

Each 2-4 miles section of the Appalachian Trail in Maine is assigned to a single volunteer. That person is responsible for making sure that the brush is kept cut back, waterbars are kept cleaned of debris, that shelters are kept cleaned, and with being the eyes on the ground to alert MATC of the need for more major trail maintainance

Major construction projects involving erosion and unsafe trail conditions are mostly done by paid crews or at least crews lead by trained and paid leaders. The money comes from donations and from grants from the National Park Service, which owns most of the trail corridor. A lot of the Maine trail is rougher than in other parts of the 2,000 miles, because most of it is relatively new. When Congress decreed in the late 1960's that a permanent route for the trail be established quickly, and mostly on the ridgetops of the Appalachian Mountains, MATC faced a massive trail design effort. The trail had been pushed through Maine in the 1930s on logging roads, bypassing most peaks. Volunteers roughed out trails that bypassed two-thirds of the existing route by the middle 1980s. Ever since paid crews have been busy "hardening" this new trail, installing stone steps on eroding steep grades, creating water barriers to prevent future erosion, and doing other needed work.

Depending on the mood of Congress and the people of Maine, a new Maine Woods National Park may or may not include the existing trail corridor. It will not include Katahdin. Under the terms of his gift, Gov. Baxter ordained that Katahdin will always remain "the mountain of the people of Maine." In addition to giving 200,000 acres of land, Baxter also left a trust fund, which with the addition of park fees pay the entire cost of maintaining the park.

But regardless, Congress has purchased the trail corridor, and assigned its care to the National Park Service, which forevermore is responsible for its maintenance, regardless of whether a new park is created.

[hikerboy57]

Quote " My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few. "
peserving our wild spaces serves the entire population, whether they visit a specific park or not. If people felt this way years ago, the national park system would never have been created.what percentage of the population has ever visited yellowstone?
preservation and recreation can coexist, but dont necessarrily have to.

[bamboo bob]

I don't understand why the idea of a new park in Maine has to exclude hunting and make no provision for ATV etc. I don't use an ATV and I don't hunt but i think the woods has room for many and can use the support of many. The logging companies let people hike and fish and hunt. Every stick of it does not have to be a playground for ATV's but they ought to be included. Plus Maine needs tourists and backpackers are cheap and there are not many of them. Keith Shaw made more of a living from snow mobiles (i don't use) than he ever saw from back packers.

[takethisbread]

Quote " My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few. "
peserving our wild spaces serves the entire population, whether they visit a specific park or not. If people felt this way years ago, the national park system would never have been created.what percentage of the population has ever visited yellowstone?
preservation and recreation can coexist, but dont necessarrily have to.

Yellowstone whether it you visit it or not is clearly in the best interests of the people. Maine woods, is indistinguishable, to most people from many woods in the Northern Appalachians. Certainly not enough to cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. not in this economy, not for this location.

BTW Yellowstone gets almost a MILLION vistiors a month in the summer.

So yes a ton of people get use out of it. When 10% of your nations population visit a place that is very much out of the way, its a major need.

by contrast Baxter state Park, which will always be the main attraction in that portionof the State gets about 60,000 vistitors a YEAR.