View Full Version : Coalition-asks-family-behind-national-park-in-katahdin-to-abandon-plan
Old Hillwalker
07-15-2015, 14:54
http://wabi.tv/2015/07/15/coalition-asks-family-behind-national-park-in-katahdin-to-abandon-plan/
Lots of objectors to this idea.
http://wabi.tv/2015/07/15/coalition-asks-family-behind-national-park-in-katahdin-to-abandon-plan/
Lots of objectors to this idea.
Change is never easy, and looking generations ahead is something that is even harder.
That said, my first and only post to this thread is mostly because I feel compelled to say that when in doubt it's always good to support a thru-hiker, a thru hiker's brother, and a couple of thru hikers' mother.
Especially in this case.
Alternate headline: "Whiny parochial locals with severe case of NIMBYism oppose national park." Yawn. Who cares.
BirdBrain
07-15-2015, 15:55
That said, my first and only post to this thread is mostly because I feel compelled to say
This is my first and only post to this thread. Mostly because it would be wise for this native to keep silent on the matter. :D
Another Kevin
07-15-2015, 16:25
Wow. Just wow. If the land belongs to Mrs. Quimby and Mr. St. Clair, then isn't it theirs to sell or donate as they wish? This is a local saying, in effect, "If you give this land away rather than selling it to International Paper, then I won't have a job logging it at some time in the future." Well, boo-hoo.
If you're a leftie who believes in wilderness, you'd surely rather have a park there.
If you're a rightie who believes in propery rights, you'd surely rather let the landowners decide how their property will be disposed of.
Wow. Just wow. If the land belongs to Mrs. Quimby and Mr. St. Clair, then isn't it theirs to sell or donate as they wish? This is a local saying, in effect, "If you give this land away rather than selling it to International Paper, then I won't have a job logging it at some time in the future." Well, boo-hoo.
If you're a leftie who believes in wilderness, you'd surely rather have a park there.
If you're a rightie who believes in propery rights, you'd surely rather let the landowners decide how their property will be disposed of.
It was purchased from the Paper companies who had a long history of sharing the land with hunters, snowmobilers, fisherman and hikers. It was a relationship built on mutual supporting values and vision for the land. This was land that was shared with everyone in Maine for generations. The first thing that Roxanne Quimby did was lock all access to the property, including locking out people how had leased hunting/logging camps from the paper company, to create her own vision of what she and she alone thought the land should be used as. There are many bitter feelings and resentment towards her. People in that area absolutely despise her.
Another Kevin
07-15-2015, 17:15
OK, clearly I'm ignorant of the history here.
Still, a conveyance to the government might be an improvement overall. It makes the land use moving forward subject to the political process, ugly as that is, rather than the whims of a single landowner.
I'm thinking of people who are still bitter about the A-T easements. This barn is still there along the corridor.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/8/10605220_2766ddbd6a_z.jpg?zz=1 (https://flic.kr/p/WmyC)
0501300045 (https://flic.kr/p/WmyC) by steelmf (https://www.flickr.com/photos/66934423@N00/), on Flickr
Traveler
07-15-2015, 17:37
It was purchased from the Paper companies who had a long history of sharing the land with hunters, snowmobilers, fisherman and hikers. It was a relationship built on mutual supporting values and vision for the land. This was land that was shared with everyone in Maine for generations. The first thing that Roxanne Quimby did was lock all access to the property, including locking out people how had leased hunting/logging camps from the paper company, to create her own vision of what she and she alone thought the land should be used as. There are many bitter feelings and resentment towards her. People in that area absolutely despise her.
As with all things there is very likely another side to this tale which caused the lands to be closed off. Poor stewardship of those using the land itself may very well have been the cause for example, there could be a hundred reasons that advanced the closing. It could also be the purchasers had a vision of pristine lands and did not want it despoiled. Its their land, they should be allowed to do with it as they see fit so long as it does not have heavy impact on the community as heavy industry might.
People said much the same about Rockefeller donating Acadia, and when the Tetons were made a national park. Those who are miffed and "despise" those folks should perhaps consider purchasing land they can use as their vision allows. Being upset for someone closing off their land they use without cost is an argument without a lot of merit.
Hangfire
07-15-2015, 18:40
Oh geez, I can only imagine there will be some new rules for thru hikers to follow, and from the whining and moaning I had to hear all the way through the Smokies (as if the ridge runners were forcing people to follow by gunpoint) I would bet there will be a lot of pissed off thru hikers.
http://www.pauldoiron.com/massacre-pond
I would actually like to see the land donated to BSP as a multi use area. Allow some logging, open it up to fishermen, hunters, hikers and snowmobilers, like it was before Roxanne purchased it. But a national park? Not really. The US Park service has a poor record of stewardship in their current parks. Too large a bureaucracy with decisions made far from the local population without having any input into what would affect the locals. Part of the reason why there are so many "No Park" signs in that area. National Park service won't accept a park in that area unless the locals buy into the project, and from what I can see, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
peakbagger
07-15-2015, 18:58
There is plenty of conserved land in the region, far more than people expect. The major objection is that it would bring the Fed into the picture. The locals in the region have long memories and there was long history of abuse by the feds of the locals at Moosehorn National Refuge in the past that "poisoned the locals opinion". The reality is that this would be a nice addition to BSP and the management of BSP is very close to what the donor wants the fed to implement. Unfortunately, the donor wants her name associated with the creation of a National Park so adding it to BSP is not acceptable. Quimby also had stated previously that she was a supported of much larger 5 million acre Maine Woods National Park Proposal in the region and that her effort was intended to kick start it . She managed to piss off the locals for a few years until she finally figured out that she is the worse spokesperson for the park. Her son now is the face of the campaign and he is a lot less controversial and has mended some but not all fences.
An interesting point is that the proposed access to the NP is actually one exit north of Medway at Sherman Mills which is southern border of Maine's potato industry. Logically if there is tourism development in the area it will be at Sherman Mills exit rather than the Medway exit that accesses the Millinocket area.
For anyone interesting in visiting the area, there are developed campgrounds and hiking trails already in place. Of course there is zero access to BSP as it most likely will be in the future. Sort of like routing the AT within sight of the Franconia and Presidential ridges rather than over them with no option to climb them.
There is also the issue of Public Reserved Lands within the unorganized townships. The paper companies have always treated those lands as if they own them, but they were set aside for the people of Maine. Roxanne Quimby doesn't own all the land she thinks she does. 10% of that land is Public Reserve Land. It can't be purchased or sold since it belongs to the Maine people.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/22/public-land-becomes-epicenter-in-state-fight/
I would bet there will be a lot of pissed off thru hikers.
This has nothing to do with thru hikers.
peakbagger
07-15-2015, 20:28
Hillwalker on this site could tell everyone a story about public reserved lands.
The originally proposed IAT route that pissed BSP off may have gone through this area but when the park objected, it was moved south to its current location at the Park Boundary.
The GF and I was wondering why the IAT terminated at Katahdin Lake and not at the Summit of Baxter, which is the logical place for it to start/end.
OK, I have to break my promise about the one post for this thread.
Not to get too nostalgic, but the mention of Maine's Public Reserve Lands makes me really miss reading posts from old-time White Blaze member "Weary" AKA Bob Cummings, and ponder his amazing work as a reporter discovering all that land along the AT that had been long been forgotten-- not to mention all his other contributions.
Some lively discussions too!
Tuckahoe
07-15-2015, 21:14
OK, I have to break my promise about the one post for this thread.
Not to get too nostalgic, but the mention of Maine's Public Reserve Lands makes me really miss reading posts from old-time White Blaze member "Weary" AKA Bob Cummings, and ponder his amazing work as a reporter discovering all that land along the AT that had been long been forgotten-- not to mention all his other contributions.
Some lively discussions too!
I know nothing of the topic, so a quick Google search brought up this article -- https://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/01/opinion/contributors/lepage-violating-state-responsibility-with-public-reserved-lands-harvest-plan/?ref=moreInopinion
Whatever happened to Weary? I have missed his posts as well.
Pedaling Fool
07-15-2015, 21:23
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/22/public-land-becomes-epicenter-in-state-fight/
That link talked about the big increase in logging, but it doesn't really explain why. I believe the big increase is in part due mostly to the rapidly growing wood pellet industry, not just in Maine, but elsewhere, but especially in Europe, since they consider it a green energy source. And here's an article that talks about some in Maine eyeing the rapidly growing demand in Europe for wood pellets http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/maine-pellet-manufacturers-eye-european-market/20341630
For a little background on the rapidly growing wood pellet industry (which unfortunately doesn't get enough coverage in the media) here's a great article that explains it and after reading it you'll see that it's NOT really a green energy source. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future
I don't really get the historical significance in the state of Maine on the Quimby issue, but I do know it's not the pressing issue. The real issue that needs attention is the surge in logging.
Lepage, because he is a tool.
I don't mind the logging. I don't particularly like clear cuts, but in some areas its the most economical way to harvest it. It does grow back. The forest recovers. What I don't like is the use of the entire tree as biomass. Something needs to stay back with the land so it can recover. Otherwise you end up with soil erosion and poor soil that won't support any plant life at all.
I would think the energy required to make the wood into pellets would negate the energy savings as a fuel source.
Pedaling Fool
07-15-2015, 21:45
Lepage, because he is a tool.
I don't mind the logging. I don't particularly like clear cuts, but in some areas its the most economical way to harvest it. It does grow back. The forest recovers. What I don't like is the use of the entire tree as biomass. Something needs to stay back with the land so it can recover. Otherwise you end up with soil erosion and poor soil that won't support any plant life at all.
I would think the energy required to make the wood into pellets would negate the energy savings as a fuel source.
Lepage is only part of the problem. If the demand is there most governors will fold. That's why California allows fracking.
It's the industry and the idea that biomass is a renewable source. People need to open their eyes just like they did on corn ethanol issue, yet we still use it, but that's another story...
I'm not against logging either, but it's the increase that you need to be careful of; I don't see an end in sight. The idea behind biomass is that you're logging garbage, not whole trees, but as the demand grows you can see that that initial vision is no longer a reality. That's the problem, once they started using the biomass refuse, that only whetted the appetite. The refuse doesn't last long and the demand is still there, because it's cheap and "green".
Pedaling Fool
07-15-2015, 22:09
I would think the energy required to make the wood into pellets would negate the energy savings as a fuel source.Apparently it's economically viable, because this industry is not that new, been growing for years, especially in the SE US, Canada and South America and other places. Seems like it's hitting Maine.
Here are a couple links, some of which shine a "positive light" on the wood pellet industry, but I'm skeptical.
http://blogs.usda.gov/2015/06/08/study-finds-increasing-wood-pellet-demand-boosts-forest-growth-reduces-greenhouse-gas-emissions-creates-jobs/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/12/141208-wood-pellet-energy-boom-driven-by-exports/
http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40-global-wood-pellet-market-study_final_R.pdf
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emi ssions/2840/
Cuacoatchoo
07-16-2015, 16:14
I support more parks. People seem much happier when they're not stuck in wall to wall concrete districts.
One of the cool aspects of my last Maine trip were all the logging roads that made wilderness areas/lakes more accessible. I'm usually more of a pedestrian tourist but 'when in rome' ATVing down logging roads was cool.
It seems like they could compromise and make it a national forest which would have environmentalist and logging goals balanced? National Park vs National Forest (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/river-of-no-return-national-parks-national-forests-and-u-s-wildernesses/7667/)
Since it is now private property, no ATV'ing down logging roads. Roxanne made it pretty well known what she wants to do with the property.
LoneStranger
07-16-2015, 19:20
She didn't go from hitchhiker to millionaire by taking no for an answer. It will be interesting to see how this plays out since I'm almost certain the answer is going to remain no as far as the feds are concerned. Will she settle for a national forest eventually? Clear cut the thing out of spite?
Dunno what the future holds but I'm heading up in the morning for a week long loop that will include a couple of days along the E Branch where I hope to catch and eat some of her trout.
Two things:
1) If we had to get local approval for every national park, we would have no national parks. The hunters who were killing the bison in Yellowstone (the first national park) before it was made a park would surely have objected had they been given a veto. The idea that local approval is some sort of prerequisite for park creation is pure fiction created by anti-government types.
2) I saw an op-ed suggesting that the landowner donate the land to the government (which happens all the time) and then have the president declare it a national monument (which happens all the time). Park creation by fiat with no congressional input. It could happen...
Two things:
2) I saw an op-ed suggesting that the landowner donate the land to the government (which happens all the time) and then have the president declare it a national monument (which happens all the time). Park creation by fiat with no congressional input. It could happen...
And the timing about right. One of Obama's last legacies?
Hey, that's a great idea. Obama could set aside a few hundred thousand acres of Maine wilds just to stick it to those locals.. and if some locals don't like it.. well... that's just tough! I bet if it came to local popular vote Baxter State Park wouldn't even exist. It is only there because Gov Baxter bought up land and MADE it a park.. much as Roxanne Quimby is doing! Some time we've just gotta do what weve gotta do!
BirdBrain
07-16-2015, 22:34
I cannot remain silent anymore. Mainers are not opposed to conserving land or the concept of parks. We are apposed to Roxanne Quimby and her actions. She wants to do to Maine what she did to Bert. Bert rescued her and she thanked him by leveraging him out if a company that bares his name. She has the same attitude towards us. Watch a documentary on Bert's Bees for perspective.
I'm sure if Gov. Percival Baxter hadn't originally bought the land for BSP and created the park himself 100 years ago, he'd be facing the same problems as Quimby is today.
BirdBrain
07-16-2015, 22:54
I'm sure if Gov. Percival Baxter hadn't originally bought the land for BSP and created the park himself 100 years ago, he'd be facing the same problems as Quimby is today.
As a Mainer I take offense to the comparison of that great man and her.
As a Mainer I take offense to the comparison of that great man and her.
I don't think I compared Baxter with Quimby as much as Mainers 100 years ago to Mainers today. However, Wikipedia has pointed out many resemblances.
Baxter's history is intertwined with Baxter State Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baxter_State_Park), which bears his name, and with Mount Katahdin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Katahdin), Maine's highest point (the highest knob on Katahdin is called Baxter Peak).In 1903 Baxter went on a fishing trip to the area around Katahdin for the first time. In 1895 the Maine Proprietors Association had urged the state to turn that area of the Maine woods into a state park to attract tourists. In 1911 a bill was introduced to turn the region into a U.S. National Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Park) but none of the plans came to fruition. In 1916 Baxter began his campaign to make the area a state park. In 1920 he led a group of politicians up Pamola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamola) Peak, traversing the Knife Edge to the summit (now known as Baxter Peak).
In a 1921 speech Baxter said: "Maine is famous for its twenty-five hundred miles of seacoast, with its countless islands; for its myriad lakes and ponds; and for its forests and rivers. But Mount Katahdin Park will be the state’s crowning glory, a worthy memorial to commemorate the end of the first and the beginning of the second century of Maine’s statehood. This park will prove a blessing to those who follow us, and they will see that we built for them more wisely than our forefathers did for us."
Most of the land around Katahdin was then owned by the Great Northern Paper Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Paper_Company). Following the Crash of 1929 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_of_1929), the company agreed to sell 6,000 acres (24 km2) around the mountain for $25,000 in 1930 to Baxter personally. Baxter in turn deeded the land to the state with the proviso that it: ". . . shall forever be used for public park and recreational purposes, shall be forever left in the natural wild state, shall forever be kept as a sanctuary for wild beasts and birds, that no road or ways for motor vehicles shall hereafter ever be constructed thereon or therein."
The park was named in his honor in 1931.
Baxter was to continue to attempt to add property to the park – often running into opposition from those who did not want to sell or making temporary trade offs to allow continued timber operations before the land acquisition was completed. Baxter, saying he did not trust the federal government, resisted efforts to turn the park into a national park. He placed various restrictive covenants on the park so that today it is not actually part of the Department of Conservation, the body that administers the state's other parks. Rather it is administered by the Baxter State Park Authority.
BirdBrain
07-17-2015, 08:48
I don't think I compared Baxter with Quimby as much as Mainers 100 years ago to Mainers today. However, Wikipedia has pointed out many resemblances.
Let me rephrase. As a Mainer I am offended by the characterization by people from away that Mainers opposing the actions of a self center opportunist is evidence that we are lessor people than our great grandparents and by extension would treat our great governor that same way. I repeat, Mainers are not opposed to conservation or parks. We oppose Quimby and her actions. Yes, some opposed Baxter. Yes, some today would as well. Give us some credit. There is a reason why more people oppose Quimby than Baxter. You are characterizing the wrong people. We have not become jerks. We are opposing a jerk. The difference today is not the people, it is the person.
Let me rephrase. As a Mainer I am offended by the characterization by people from away that Mainers opposing the actions of a self center opportunist is evidence that we are lessor people than our great grandparents and by extension would treat our great governor that same way. I repeat, Mainers are not opposed to conservation or parks. We oppose Quimby and her actions. Yes, some opposed Baxter. Yes, some today would as well. Give us some credit. There is a reason why more people oppose Quimby than Baxter. You are characterizing the wrong people. We have not become jerks. We are opposing a jerk. The difference today is not the people, it is the person.
Well said, which is why her son is now taking over the efforts of getting the park made.
Let me rephrase. As a Mainer I am offended by the characterization by people from away that Mainers opposing the actions of a self center opportunist is evidence that we are lessor people than our great grandparents and by extension would treat our great governor that same way. I repeat, Mainers are not opposed to conservation or parks. We oppose Quimby and her actions. Yes, some opposed Baxter. Yes, some today would as well. Give us some credit. There is a reason why more people oppose Quimby than Baxter. You are characterizing the wrong people. We have not become jerks. We are opposing a jerk. The difference today is not the people, it is the person.
On behalf of everyone who doesn't live in Maine and doesn't know anything about the Burt's Bees kerflulffle (that's like 99% of the country), let me say that NO ONE CARES who the landowner is or how she got her money. Opposing a national park because you don' t like the person who is DONATING the is just the height of silliness. If Quimby did something illegal, let the legal system take care of it. Otherwise, big yawn.
This is a perfect example of why locals should not get a say when a national park is created.
BirdBrain
07-17-2015, 10:19
On behalf of everyone who doesn't live in Maine and doesn't know anything about the Burt's Bees kerflulffle (that's like 99% of the country), let me say that NO ONE CARES who the landowner is or how she got her money. Opposing a national park because you don' t like the person who is DONATING the is just the height of silliness. If Quimby did something illegal, let the legal system take care of it. Otherwise, big yawn.
This is a perfect example of why locals should not get a say when a national park is created.
I stayed out of this debate because great points were being made on both sides. But the repeated comparisons between her and Baxter were too much to stomach. Again, and for the last time, we are not opposed to conservation or parks. Her goals are not noble. Her goals are all about her. She is trying to Bert Maine. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO PARKS!!!!
On behalf of everyone who doesn't live in Maine and doesn't know anything about the Burt's Bees kerflulffle (that's like 99% of the country), let me say that NO ONE CARES who the landowner is or how she got her money. Opposing a national park because you don' t like the person who is DONATING the is just the height of silliness. If Quimby did something illegal, let the legal system take care of it. Otherwise, big yawn.
This is a perfect example of why locals should not get a say when a national park is created.
The NPS already told her that there would be no national park without local support. She had already burned that bridge.
BirdBrain
07-17-2015, 10:40
The NPS already told her that there would be no national park without local support. She had already burned that bridge.
Therein lies the difference. She is arrogant. She thought she could just do anything she wanted with no regard for anyone but her huge ego. That was the lesson she learned as she gained her fortune. She will likely just sulk and lock Maine out forever. This has nothing to do with conservation or parks. It has everything to do with a nobody forgetting her where she come from and in the process having no regard for people that were once her peers. No nicety will erase her disregard for the Maine people. We are not Bert.
Pedaling Fool
07-17-2015, 10:43
I stayed out of this debate because great points were being made on both sides. But the repeated comparisons between her and Baxter were too much to stomach. Again, and for the last time, we are not opposed to conservation or parks. Her goals are not noble. Her goals are all about her. She is trying to Bert Maine. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO PARKS!!!!
I really don't understand this Quimby issue, but getting more and more curious as this thread goes on. As I said, I believe the real issue is the increase in logging, not just in Maine, but elsewhere, but that seems to be way under the radar now...too bad.
However, can you, explain what exactly you're (Mainers) opposed to? I understand it has something to do with the Feds creating a national park. It seems like you all want only state parks, but no national parks, is this right?
Just trying to understand the issue, much of the threads here are not really explaining it, but rather an arena for clashing of personalities.
You are characterizing the wrong people. We have not become jerks. We are opposing a jerk. The difference today is not the people, it is the person.
No, I don't think I am. She wants to donate her land to create a National Park. She's not going to have control.
In the meantime, Acadia NP attracts 2.4 million people each year. What's Baxter get 75,000? A new NP would clearly help the area economically.
swisscross
07-17-2015, 11:33
Due to this thread I have looked her up....where is all the information of her being a jerk?
Yeah she bought Bert's half of the company, relocated it, built it up and sold it to Clorox for a huge sum of money.
She then turned around and GAVE Bert four million dollars.
Which appears to me quite generous. What am I missing?
He did not have to sell his half...She did not have to give him a dime.
I am sure there is more to the story, please tell.
Self serving or not, she bought the land and it is hers to do as she sees fit.
She might be a bi&%h but most successful business people are.
Due to this thread I have looked her up....where is all the information of her being a jerk?
Yeah she bought Bert's half of the company, relocated it, built it up and sold it to Clorox for a huge sum of money.
She then turned around and GAVE Bert four million dollars.
Which appears to me quite generous. What am I missing?
He did not have to sell his half...She did not have to give him a dime.
I am sure there is more to the story, please tell.
Self serving or not, she bought the land and it is hers to do as she sees fit.
She might be a bi&%h but most successful business people are.
Yeah, I'm not sure of the animosity either, Burt wasn't even a native Mainer, and she's the one that created the product from Burt's bees wax
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/08/co-founder-of-burts-bees-says-he-was-ousted/9982551/
I think people opposed to the park are just making excuses.
Anyone who supports the creation of more national parks should not care about where the land/money are coming from so long as there was no outright illegality/immorality involved (I would personally oppose a donation from, say, someone who made their money in human trafficking).
Even former BSP director Buzz Calvary likes the idea.
https://bangordailynews.com/2015/05/14/opinion/contributors/why-baxter-state-parks-former-director-backs-national-park-plan/
Birdbrain, of particular note is this quote.
During the last several years, the lands adjoining Baxter State Park on the east have been acquired by Roxanne Quimby. As the owner, she is committed to ensuring these lands are preserved, protected and available for recreational opportunities for generations to come. She has offered them as a North Woods National Park. Her generosity and love for the area are consistent with what former Gov. Percival P. Baxter dreamed of and, after 32 years, succeeded in doing in creating Baxter State Park. As is the case today, his effort was resisted and consequently, in order to achieve his goal, he purchased, with his own money, 201,018 acres via 28 different deeds.
peakbagger
07-17-2015, 12:03
There are definitely long term personality issues that have clouded the subject but there are also legit concerns by locals. The congressional district has stated clearly without local support they don't support the project.
There are past issues in Eastern Maine with the conduct of federal employees with the expansion of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge that stirred up local sentiment. One popular tactic is to bring in a short term federal employee that works with the locals and makes long term assurances to assuage the locals. Said employee then gets transferred and the assurances evaporate.
The area is on the SE edge of about 1/4 of the state's wood basket. Despite the collapse of the paper industry in the area, the wood basket is potentially a major source of a new industry as wood based bioproducts can replace petroleum based high value chemicals. The unexpected fracking and non conventional oil extraction revolution has delayed this market but if the expected implementation of carbon trading kicks in, that area can return to some industrial base. Unfortunately once a National Park is declared, there are special restrictions and permits that go in place for any industries located well away from the actual park boundaries. Thus any hopes of a smaller but significant industrial versus tourism base are further impacted.
There are several land owners within the proposed declaration boundaries whose land value would potentially be diminished as their access would be impacted. Unfortunately logging is ugly and heavy equipment is used that is incompatible with visitors visions of a NP. The general result is the owner ends up being forced to sell out as the NP has fairly strong control of what can and cannot occur in an inholding in the park. Private logging roads are interesting entities, they generally exist on an handshake with multiple entities having legal rights to access. One of the early missteps by Elliotsville Plantation was to build gates on logging roads that others had legal rights to use. In some cases landowners ended up having to use far longer routes which is costly when paying for diesel for low value product.
There is a long term tradition in Maine of hunting and fishing rights on this land and that will go away. The family has bought some land that will remain for hunting and fishing but it was already open so the net result is loss of available hunting land.
There are also some Millinocket region specific concerns, the proposed NP is most easily accessed via the Sherman Mills exit off the Interstate which is one exit north of Millinocket. There currently is minimal tourism infrastructure in Sherman (one or two tourist courts and the ubiquitous Irving gas station with a lunch counter). That will change and the Millinocket area will lose even more even more traffic so there is nothing in the NP proposal.
With respect to logging there is a Spruce Budworm epidemic that is starting in this region. The region is mostly a spruce/fir monoculture that is natural. The budworm (which actually prefers firs over spruce despite their name)is a local pest and when there is epidemic there is significant mortality of the trees in the landscape. The last epidemic was 30 years ago and it wiped out large portions of the forest including much of BSP. Outside the park there were millions of acres that were clearcut as the alternative was to let the trees die and experience wildfires for years afterwards. With a significantly diminished paper industry, this time around there will be nobody who wants the trees so they will remain standing with the potential for wildfires more likely. This article provides an excellent overview on the budworm http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/spruce-budworm
The budworm issue is also tied with fundamental misunderstanding of the forest in this part of Maine. Its a spruce fir monoculture with islands of hardwoods mostly short term hardwoods that move in after disturbances. There is isolated potential for old growth habitat, but there is a far more likely potential for the budworm cycle of burn and regrow. Catch the woods prior to the die off and they are nice to visit but that is only a minority of the cycle, the rest of the time the woods are dense regrowth and not particularly scenic. Thus the locals feel that the promised NP jobs will be no where near the projected visitation in the long run and is not worth the trade off to the area. Unlike Acadia National Park which was built around significant special terrain and along the seashore, the biggest attraction at the proposed NP is looking over the border of BSP at the nice mountains inside the park. Its highly unlikely that BSP will allow trail access into the park as it limits their control, thus there will be another isolated piece of federal land with few visitors and eventually unfunded maintenance with significant downsides to the region.
Lone Wolf
07-17-2015, 12:11
Due to this thread I have looked her up....where is all the information of her being a jerk?
Yeah she bought Bert's half of the company, relocated it, built it up and sold it to Clorox for a huge sum of money.
She then turned around and GAVE Bert four million dollars.
Which appears to me quite generous. What am I missing?
He did not have to sell his half...She did not have to give him a dime.
I am sure there is more to the story, please tell.
Self serving or not, she bought the land and it is hers to do as she sees fit.
She might be a bi&%h but most successful business people are.
yeah i don't see what the big fuss is about. she should just post the land and fence it off and keep out the snobby mainers
To someone with absolutely zero knowledge of this situation, this article (I think) sums up everything pretty well.http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/11/17/son-burt-bees-cofounder-leads-fight-for-maine-national-park/iQHv6w2s7fUJc6MBt6ZJSN/story.html#
Sigh. Peakbagger, you have a lot of misinformation there.
Dead standing trees, once the needles fall off, are no more flammable than live trees (especially in the humid east where fires are uncommon to start with). Also, budworm is natural and native, and budworm outbreaks are actually good for a lot of birds and other wildlife, and they encourage forest regrowth in a much healthier way than clearcuts (I'm an ecologist who has done a lot of research on this subject).
The idea that wood will replace petroleum is one of those things that's always 10 years in the future, now and forever. To date, every technology for making gas from wood requires more energy than it nets. And if the technology is ever perfected, there will be more than enough forest elsewhere to supply our needs.
Federal employees are rarely transferred involuntarily.
So long as one's land is privately owned, logging would be entirely legal, even on park inholdings and areas immediately adjacent to the park. Just look at the western boundary of Yellowstone, which was logged so intensively that the boundary is visible from space.
As for Millnocket, towns ebb and wane, and if the town loses traffic, another town will gain. That's life.
As for recreation, if the land is privately owned, then the owners get to decide what to do with it. A National Park with developed trails will be accessible to many times more people than a few local hunters. If you support outdoor recreation, you should support the park.
And finally, if the park turns out to be unscenic and rarely visited, great! That just means that it can be a big wildlife preserve without people around to mess everything up!
Another Kevin
07-17-2015, 13:16
I'm hearing considerable bitterness from the Mainers here, especially BirdBrain.
Assuming arguendo that Roxanne Quimby is the Devil's spawn, she, or the Elliotsville Plantation and the Quimby Family Foundation, nevertheless own considerable acreage, and she has expressed the wish to reserve that land for conservation and recreation.
I'd appreciate if the Mainers could clarify the position:
Is that wish in itself evil? Is the perception that such a large conservation reserve will destroy the last or the region's economy?
Or is it that the goal of conservation itself is laudable, but the Federal government is so mistrusted that giving the property to them is the move that people are objecting to?
Or does the fact that the Quimby family is involved at all make any deal objectionable?
In short: assume arguendo that Ms. Quimby has a long history of monstrous wickedness, but wants to do this one thing right before she goes. Is there a right way that she should go about it, or is her very name going to taint whatever deal she makes? In which case, what's the "least worst" thing she could do?
Spouting all the reasons that "she shouldn't do that!" is going to convince me much less than giving reasons in favor of some alternative.
In short, most of the arguments I've heard look only backward and talk about what shouldn't be done. If you want to convince me of your position, look forward and tell me what should be done.
BirdBrain
07-17-2015, 13:28
Grandfather the previous agreements. Donate the land to Baxter. Move back to Massachusetts.
Lone Wolf
07-17-2015, 13:52
Grandfather the previous agreements. Donate the land to Baxter. Move back to Massachusetts.
why you so upset? you live 3 hours from there
BirdBrain
07-17-2015, 13:55
why you so upset? you live 3 hours from there
Why do you care? You live more than 3 states from here.
Lone Wolf
07-17-2015, 14:00
i don't expect an answer
yeah i don't see what the big fuss is about. she should just post the land and fence it off and keep out the snobby mainers
Yeah. She did that. Thus, the bitterness. When generations of families had worked hand in hand with the paper industry for so long, had 99 year leases on hunting and fishing camps and then one day the access is closed off by chained and locked gates, without warning, there is to be quite a bit of backlash. She completely misread the entire situation and created anger and resentment that her son is now working to repair. No local support, no national park. She wants to donate, donate it to BSP.
swisscross
07-17-2015, 14:48
Yeah. She did that. Thus, the bitterness. When generations of families had worked hand in hand with the paper industry for so long, had 99 year leases on hunting and fishing camps and then one day the access is closed off by chained and locked gates, without warning, there is to be quite a bit of backlash. She completely misread the entire situation and created anger and resentment that her son is now working to repair. No local support, no national park. She wants to donate, donate it to BSP.
Sounds like sour grapes to me...maybe all those people who had leases on hunting and fishing camps should have purchased the land for themselves.
Sounds like sour grapes to me...maybe all those people who had leases on hunting and fishing camps should have purchased the land for themselves.
Most did. Roxanne blocked the roads.
Yeah. She did that. Thus, the bitterness. When generations of families had worked hand in hand with the paper industry for so long, had 99 year leases on hunting and fishing camps and then one day the access is closed off by chained and locked gates, without warning, there is to be quite a bit of backlash. She completely misread the entire situation and created anger and resentment that her son is now working to repair. No local support, no national park.
I would think if the land is sold to a new owner, the lease is void.
She wants to donate, donate it to BSP.
Of course she's not under any obligation to to that. Times and conditions change. It behooves the local area/economy to bring in new/out-of-state dollars.
peakbagger
07-17-2015, 15:36
Sigh. Peakbagger, you have a lot of misinformation there. Lets qualify that to IN YOUR OPINION
Dead standing trees, once the needles fall off, are no more flammable than live trees (especially in the humid east where fires are uncommon to start with). Also, budworm is natural and native, and budworm outbreaks are actually good for a lot of birds and other wildlife, and they encourage forest regrowth in a much healthier way than clearcuts (I'm an ecologist who has done a lot of research on this subject). There were significant fires post epidemic east of Baxter that went into Baxter. I get my information from other professionals that seem to have differing opinions on forest regeneration
The idea that wood will replace petroleum is one of those things that's always 10 years in the future, now and forever. To date, every technology for making gas from wood requires more energy than it nets. And if the technology is ever perfected, there will be more than enough forest elsewhere to supply our needs. Well here is a link to start http://mx1.conwaydailysun.com/community/health/116791-memorial-hospital-to-hold-ribbon-cutting-ceremony-for-new-biofuel-heating-plant and my understanding is there is another facility on its way and a production facility to follow soon after. As for more than enough forest elsewhere, where? The NIMBY approach is let some other third world country (or adjoining states on Massachusetts part) ccut down their forests so we can leave ours pretty. The reality is that multiple use works, there can be forestry and recreation not to the exclusion of each other
Federal employees are rarely transferred involuntarily.My observations of the local national forest and discussion with career WMNF employees in the past is they are expected to move around to get promoted, if they elect to stay, they are flatlined in their current position and are subtly encouraged to leave the service. So they aren't forced to move, they just are heavily discouraged from staying. /I]
So long as one's land is privately owned, logging would be entirely legal, even on park inholdings and areas immediately adjacent to the park. Just look at the western boundary of Yellowstone, which was logged so intensively that the boundary is visible from space.[I]I disagree, the NP has the right to impose special conditions on the inholding owners, they also can effectively limit economic access by closing access through the park, as for what happens outside the park boundary, if its private land and the owners meet the regs that have the right to do what they want with their land
As for Millnocket, towns ebb and wane, and if the town loses traffic, another town will gain. That's life.I bet they people who live there appreciate you sentiment
As for recreation, if the land is privately owned, then the owners get to decide what to do with it. A National Park with developed trails will be accessible to many times more people than a few local hunters. If you support outdoor recreation, you should support the park.IN YOUR MOST HUMBLE OPINION, I personally enjoy outdoor recreation on private forest lands and on land protected by development easements, I don't pay to access many of them which I most likely will if the proposed NP goes in.
And finally, if the park turns out to be unscenic and rarely visited, great! That just means that it can be a big wildlife preserve without people around to mess everything up! You don't happen to be an alumni of Restore the North Woods?, heck even Jamie gave up on that concept Unfortunately, the concept is being sold that there will be significant economic benefits to the area and the region so even the supporters are hoping your wish doesn't come through. Seeing the sprawl outside Acadia or North Conway NH , I sure don't regard that as anything positive.
Another Kevin
07-17-2015, 15:48
I would think if the land is sold to a new owner, the lease is void.
Ordinarily, the new owner is bound by the lease. I'm a landlord. I can't just evict my tenants and sell the building. I have to give them notice, and in most cases it's easiest to give 30 or 60 days notice before the lease lapses, and then not renew, because it's actually pretty hard for me to break the lease. Or I can sell the business as a going concern, and then the new owner has to honor the lease. And I'd take a bath on that, because most buyers won't want to assume an existing lease. I'd get enough better selling price that it's worth waiting for the lease to run out and having the place stand vacant, not generating any income, pending sale.
I don't know about the working of these 99-year leases. The state I live in has a rule (actually in the state constitution) that no lease of land can be for a period longer than 12 years, and 1 year is customary for residential properties.
Due to this thread I have looked her up....where is all the information of her being a jerk?
Yeah she bought Bert's half of the company, relocated it, built it up and sold it to Clorox for a huge sum of money.
She then turned around and GAVE Bert four million dollars.
Which appears to me quite generous. What am I missing?
He did not have to sell his half...She did not have to give him a dime.
I am sure there is more to the story, please tell.
Self serving or not, she bought the land and it is hers to do as she sees fit.
She might be a bi&%h but most successful business people are.
I am not sure this movie gives a totally fair and accurate portrayal of all involved, but it is on Netflix and most interesting. it's mostly about Burt, but you can't really tell his story without hers too.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/burts_buzz/
Roxanne Quimby by has done some amazing things, and is a great friend of the AT, so I feel a bit odd even posting the link, but I think it's all good.
If nothing else it's a good reminder that if you screw around on a smart woman, she will end up with the biggest pile of dough. Though I expect smarter people than me will take far more away from the film than that.
Pedaling Fool
07-19-2015, 19:45
I've been reading a little bit about Roxanne Quimby out of curiosity created by this thread and I've talked to others (not on this site) from Maine and they basically say that it's the rural rightwingers mostly against her plans. Probably not entirely true, but I thought it was an interesting perspective. They were both in support of Mrs Quimby's efforts.
I still don't claim to get the issue there in Maine, given the long history that I'm just missing out on, but another thing this one Mainer told me (when I asked about the issue of the feds vs state park) that Mainers really hate outsiders intervention and this is something that dates back to when Maine separated from Mass.
Here's an interesting Article. http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/05/27/roxanne-quimbys-story-worth-telling-whether-you-admire-or-revile-her-plans/
It really does kind of make the case that she's the real "cat lady" :D
I still don't see the problem, to me it's all about protecting the land. However, maybe now that I've read more about the issue some can straighten me out, but for now I'm going to go back and re-read this thread.
BirdBrain
07-19-2015, 20:50
I still don't claim to get the issue there in Maine, given the long history that I'm just missing out on, but another thing this one Mainer told me (when I asked about the issue of the feds vs state park) that Mainers really hate outsiders intervention and this is something that dates back to when Maine separated from Mass.
What Mainers don't like is rich people coming to Maine, saying they love Maine, and then turning it into Boston or Martha's Vineyard. It used to be a hardship to live on the coast or in the deep woods. Too many rich people have driven generations out with their money and better ideas. They see the beauty of Maine, take it, change it, and then look at us like we have 3 heads.
Lone Wolf
07-19-2015, 20:54
What Mainers don't like is rich people coming to Maine, saying they love Maine, and then turning it into Boston or Martha's Vineyard. It used to be a hardship to live on the coast or in the deep woods. Too many rich people have driven generations out with their money and better ideas. They see the beauty of Maine, take it, change it, and then look at us like we have 3 heads.
oh brother :rolleyes:
MuddyWaters
07-19-2015, 23:35
What Mainers don't like is rich people coming to Maine, saying they love Maine, and then turning it into Boston or Martha's Vineyard. It used to be a hardship to live on the coast or in the deep woods. Too many rich people have driven generations out with their money and better ideas. They see the beauty of Maine, take it, change it, and then look at us like we have 3 heads.
True everywhere.
Ask Coloradans what they think of the rich folk from Texas that come buy up all property, drive prices up till locals cant afford to live there anymore.
A few years ago cars with texas plates might have their tires slashed at some places like Wolf Creek ski area.
MuddyWaters
07-19-2015, 23:44
True everywhere.
Ask Coloradans what they think of the rich folk from Texas that come buy up all property, drive prices up till locals cant afford to live there anymore.
A few years ago cars with texas plates might have their tires slashed at some places like Wolf Creek ski area.
Locals in the small towns in NC/TN border area arent thrilled with outside people moving there, buying up land and building homes either.
Pedaling Fool
07-20-2015, 06:41
What Mainers don't like is rich people coming to Maine, saying they love Maine, and then turning it into Boston or Martha's Vineyard. It used to be a hardship to live on the coast or in the deep woods. Too many rich people have driven generations out with their money and better ideas. They see the beauty of Maine, take it, change it, and then look at us like we have 3 heads.Yes, as MW says, there are a lot of states that have that issue and they don't like it, well except Florida, we're kind of use to being invaded by old farts from around the country. Even Mainers come down here to get away from the cold Maine winters, maybe we here in Florida should make an exception to those cranky old Mainers and kick them out:D
Still doesn't answer my question about Mrs. Quimby, but that's ok, I'll probably get the book and read about it. I also still got them other Mainers to talk to, who believe it's just the rural folks that want to play on their snowmobiles that really despise Mrs Quimby.
Pedaling Fool
07-20-2015, 06:42
Locals in the small towns in NC/TN border area arent thrilled with outside people moving there, buying up land and building homes either.
Ron Haven was talking about that, seems like that was a growing trend...
Drybones
07-20-2015, 07:45
I'm against the federal government owning any land, it should belong to the states, with the exception of military property. We dont need another 1000 jobs paid for by the tax payers.
Pedaling Fool
07-20-2015, 07:57
I'm against the federal government owning any land, it should belong to the states, with the exception of military property. We dont need another 1000 jobs paid for by the tax payers.
I personally don't have a problem with that viewpoint. However, in this case it's her land and she wants to donate it to the Feds to be turned into a national park. How often will that happen?
I'm kind of curious why the paper company sold her the land and when was it sold to her? I'll try and find out those questions.
BTW, I understand the lumber industry in Maine went thru some bad times, which as I understand it some how Canada wrestled away lumber jobs from Maine, not sure how...
Pedaling Fool
07-20-2015, 08:01
BTW, there has been somewhat of a resurgence in the lumber business, not just from the woodpellet industry, but also a bounce back in the housing market, so hopefully there is not logging in that area, but it sounds as if Mrs Quimby won't allow that...
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323864304578316132672998200
^^Notice the comment from the Mainer:D
LittleRock
07-20-2015, 10:07
Solution seems simple enough to me. Just make the land National Forest instead of National Park. Hikers, fishers, etc. can use the land. Logging companies can use some of it too. Gov't still controls land use - at a fraction of the taxpayer cost. Win-win for everyone.
Old Hillwalker
07-20-2015, 12:13
Solution seems simple enough to me. Just make the land National Forest instead of National Park. Hikers, fishers, etc. can use the land. Logging companies can use some of it too. Gov't still controls land use - at a fraction of the taxpayer cost. Win-win for everyone.
I have been promoting this idea for some time, but it seems like a non-starter. Maine only has a tiny bit of Nat'l Forest located at the edge of the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. Some locals believe that there is none and don't want any.
I'm against the federal government owning any land, it should belong to the states, with the exception of military property. We dont need another 1000 jobs paid for by the tax payers.
National Parks are a national treasure for all, and all citizens share in the expense. A state park puts the burden on its taxpayers alone and are often closed because of budget restraints.
mdschill
07-20-2015, 14:11
I'm surprised that a hiker would hold that opinion, because without the federal landholding that is now the National Park System, most of our extant parks would have long ago been exploited for their resources and then left in ruins once those resources were gone.
I'm surprised that a hiker would hold that opinion, because without the federal landholding that is now the National Park System, most of our extant parks would have long ago been exploited for their resources and then left in ruins once those resources were gone.
Yes, this. Also, any hiker that doesn't believe in federal ownership of public lands and hikes or camps or fishes or whatever on those lands is a big hypocrite.
Another Kevin
07-20-2015, 15:39
Yes, this. Also, any hiker that doesn't believe in federal ownership of public lands and hikes or camps or fishes or whatever on those lands is a big hypocrite.
It is possible, I suppose, to enjoy, gratefully and respectfully, the treasures that are our Federal lands, while still believing that someone else - perhaps state or local agencies, or charitable trusts - would be even better stewards. Never confuse differences of opinion with differences of principle.
For instance, I'd consider it a disaster if the Adirondack Park were to become Federal. For all the political grandstanding over the more than a century of its history, New York State has done a reasonable job steering it between Scylla (http://www.protectadks.org/) and Charybdis (http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/old-roads-in-legal-limbo). I don't think that the Federal government could have done as well, if only because it often fails to hear local voices in favor of the ones in Washington. (Moreover, the protection of the Adirondack Park is in the state constitution. The legislature cannot change it with the stroke of a pen.)
That said, I'm not eager to de-Federalize any existing Federal protected lands. Each transfer is an opportunity to erode protection, so even if the stewardship is imperfect, what will follow a change is very likely much, much worse.
I don't think it's hypocritical to say that there's nuance in the matter.
Hmmm... private property, if she wants to make it a swim park with water slides, that is up to her.
Some decades ago my dad took us to Maine to meet relatives. I grew up in Texas, where you say hello to people, even if you don't know them, as you walk down the sidewalk. I noticed people started crossing the street to get away from us. My dad told mom and I we were upsetting people. This was in the 1950s.
I don't know the reason for such silliness towards others, and I don't much care for it. Hopefully thnigs have much improved in Maine since then, but I'm not so sure now.
I felt like I was being seen as an outsider, when we are all Americans, regardeless of which state of the US we are born in.
When I was a kid my dad used to rail about the g@@damed Greenies from Colo coming up to Wyoming to steal our fish and shoot our elk.
I got the same treatment in Alaska when I worked on the big pipeline project in the 1970's. The Alaskans hated us folks from the lower 48. It was like we weren't legitimately there - illegal immigrants or something.
We are all Americans and we all have full rights in every state.
But I have a big bone to pick with a few comments here.
The government does not own anything. It manages our land for us. Federal land and State public land do not belong to the Feds and the State. It belongs to me and you (and all other Americans). This idea that we need to take land away from the Feds is total bulls**T! This argument for stealing (because that is what it is) has been pushed by the rich and big business since well back in the 1800's. It is marketed politically as "We are trying to protect you poor Mainers (substitute any state name here) from the evil Feds". Bunch of crap. It is the timber, mining, ranching and various other businesses and rich folks who push this as they want your land for free. And when they get it it is theirs to do with as they want. This has occurred on a huge scale throughout US history. Literally tens of millions of acres of public land and hundreds of billions of dollars of YOUR resources have been given away for no compensation. Rich folks love getting something for nothing. That's why the buy politicians and market crap ideas like this. To this day you can go out on a piece of public land and file a mining claim and take the resource and pay us who own it nothing. Canadian mining companies run the vast majority of the gold mines in the US on public land and do not pay us for what they take. Timber companies harvest our trees and do not pay us for them and on top of that we get to spend our tax money building them roads in the national forest so that they can take our property. Ranchers where I grew up and live now run their cattle on public land and pay about 1/3 the rate that private grazing land costs. And some refuse to pay and many think that land belongs to them or should. It goes on and on. Every politician who pushes this meme is in the pocket of some rich business person who wants to make hay. These are the same people who fought Teddy Roosevelt tooth and toe nail to try and prevent 'public' land from being put in a state where they could not exploit it. They do not believe in national parks or national forest as they want that land for free to get richer off of it. Don't fall into the trap of supporting those who steal from us.
I too have big issues with the depredations of rich people, but as a general rule if an American buys land anywhere in America it is his private property and, within reason, it is theirs to do with as they wish. Thus the big requirement that we 'protect' our public land from those who are trying to get their hands on it.
That being said when you move to a new area there is a social requirement (not a legal one) to treat the people and place with respect and act responsibility. There is a strong tendency among certain people that their 'rights' are all that matter and this is a very simplistic view and totally non-workable in a densely populated world. Society and civilization are far more important than someones right to act outside reasonable bounds legal or not.
Pedaling Fool
07-21-2015, 18:36
What Mainers don't like is rich people coming to Maine, saying they love Maine, and then turning it into Boston or Martha's Vineyard. It used to be a hardship to live on the coast or in the deep woods. Too many rich people have driven generations out with their money and better ideas. They see the beauty of Maine, take it, change it, and then look at us like we have 3 heads.
What Mainers don't like is change. BTW, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, shoot the Mainer Dan Macleod, who wrote the article
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/07/21/the-point/maine-is-stuck-in-the-past-specifically-1940/;)
There are also some Millinocket region specific concerns, the proposed NP is most easily accessed via the Sherman Mills exit off the Interstate which is one exit north of Millinocket. There currently is minimal tourism infrastructure in Sherman (one or two tourist courts and the ubiquitous Irving gas station with a lunch counter). That will change and the Millinocket area will lose even more even more traffic so there is nothing in the NP proposal.
Thanks for providing a lot of good, informative background pb. Not buying the Millinocket piece. If the nearest sizable town to this proposed NP cannot figure out how to capitalize off of it - nice hotels, shops, outfitters, restaurants, etc. - then they haven't much Yankee ingenuity. A mere one exit away on I-95? Infrastructure in place? Capital will flock to the place to serve the demand that will come, presuming there's the traffic it seems likely there would be.
Millinocket's been through some tough times recently. I'd hope that the mindset would not be so downcast as a result as to be unable to see the opportunity in this.
As re Ms. Quimby. Sounds like a fair amount of unwarranted misogyny informing some of the highly personal criticism of her, and I'd venture that not all Mainers, who have no monopoly say on this set of questions anyhow, would agree with the thrust of some critics we see here.
If the nearest sizable town to this proposed NP cannot figure out how to capitalize off of it - nice hotels, shops, outfitters, restaurants, etc. - then they haven't much Yankee ingenuity. A mere one exit away on I-95? Infrastructure in place? Capital will flock to the place to serve the demand that will come, presuming there's the traffic it seems likely there would be.
I mean, Lincoln and North Woodstock, NH, have done alright by Franconia Notch, even though they're a good bit south of it. Millinocket doesn't have a Loon Mountain in town, but it's hard to figure how a nice big new park nearby wouldn't be an economic boon.
I mean, Lincoln and North Woodstock, NH, have done alright by Franconia Notch, even though they're a good bit south of it. Millinocket doesn't have a Loon Mountain in town, but it's hard to figure how a nice big new park nearby wouldn't be an economic boon.
Roxanne didn't want a new Acadia NP. She wanted a wildlife refuge with little to no human interaction. It's the reason she blocked all access.
LittleRock
07-22-2015, 08:23
I'm surprised that a hiker would hold that opinion, because without the federal landholding that is now the National Park System, most of our extant parks would have long ago been exploited for their resources and then left in ruins once those resources were gone.
Need I remind people that most of the AT is on public land that isn't run by the National Park Service? Those areas seem to be doing just fine - in fact, the Smokies was one of my least favorite sections because of the crowds and all the rules the park service put in place.
LoneStranger
07-24-2015, 08:11
Had a chance to talk to some of the folks who live and work up there on my trip and even had a couple of conversations with a person working for KWW on two different days on trail. Very interesting to have those discussions and then come back and read this thread. Brain hasn't relearned to type enough to elaborate, but I will say that the trout were delicious!!
Roxanne didn't want a new Acadia NP. She wanted a wildlife refuge with little to no human interaction. It's the reason she blocked all access.
Roanne is no longer running the show.
A New National Park & Recreation Area in Northern Maine (http://www.nrcm.org/projects-hot-issues/woods-wildlife-and-wilderness/a-new-national-park-recreation-area-in-northern-maine/)
Roanne is no longer running the show.
A New National Park & Recreation Area in Northern Maine (http://www.nrcm.org/projects-hot-issues/woods-wildlife-and-wilderness/a-new-national-park-recreation-area-in-northern-maine/)
It's her son. You would have to be pretty naive to think she's still not running the show.
Another Kevin
07-24-2015, 17:50
It's her son. You would have to be pretty naive to think she's still not running the show.
Highly likely, but by no means a given. My sainted mother and I surely disagreed on a lot of things.
It's her son. You would have to be pretty naive to think she's still not running the show.
Yes, and the message according to you ("she wanted a wildlife refuge with little to no human interaction. It's the reason she blocked all access.") has changed.
BTW, BSP has very much the same mandate as you noted above. It's wildlife first, people second.
I spoke with a couple people from Baxter this week, whom shall remain nameless, about the National Park, and they agreed that it was a good idea, and not unlike Baxter's vision, frowned upon by many locals, which left them flabbergasted.