View Full Version : New National Park near Baxter State Park?
An interesting Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/proposed-national-park-is-a-multimillion-dollar-gift-wrapped-up-in-distrust/2016/05/22/0f036aa0-1d0b-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html) about the possibility of a new National Park near Baxter State Park in Maine. A large chunk of land was purchased by the co-founder of Burt's Beeswax and donated to the Feds for a possible park (along with a ton of money), but of course there's an ongoing fight among locals, who seem divided about whether it would do more harm than good, or quite the opposite. It's funny to me, because the one successful business in Millinocket is the Appalachian Trail Cafe and the hostel owned by the same man. All other businesses have died or are dying.
If we listened to the what the locals wanted, we would never have had a single national park in the US. Screw the ignorant locals.
Really?
Screw the ignorant "feds" who think "concessions" contracts are more important than the National Park, for example the "incident commander" refusing to allow the forest fire fighters to fight the fire, pulling them to protect the concessions, allowing the forest fire to go to "secondary burn" which means the fire goes into the forest floor, to start all over again from "underground" and for example, the let's dress up in a ranger outfit and "study" the infestation of trees, not cutting and burning an infested tree, until every tree of that species is dead, then, finding the infestation in another species of tree, deciding on another "study" not cutting and burning that tree.
I said, Do you think that is their second most favorite food?
Lake Tahoe infestations were cut and covered with contractor's clear plastic, the sunlight killing that infestation. The "feds" stopped that, and so, the Lake Tahoe infestation spread, killing the trees over a huge area.
Screw the ignorant "feds"..for spreading their arrogance and ignorance across this great nation in our national parks, our forests, and every other meddlesome project they invent to give out our tax dollars to their ner-do-well relatives.
somers515
05-23-2016, 06:22
Well the comments on this informative news article went pretty awry pretty quick. Thought it was very cool that an AT thru hiker was leading the push for the national park. I for one hope it happens.
Me too.
If the AT were rerouted to the new National Park/Monument it could connect with the International Appalachian Trail.
I have long thought a good name for the Park would be Appalchian Trails (plural)National Monument.
The name and reroute of the AT would give the park additional cache and renown, making it even easier to promote than it would be anyway. It would also be a huge boost to the profiles of the IAT and help insure its sustainability.
Katahdin could still be celebrated as a special blue blaze, but the issues Baxter State Park faces from AT thru hikers would be addressed, and The AT would no longer be effectively "closed" to their hikes every October. This would further spread out users of the Trail. New trails would created and the local economy would see new kinds of jobs-- the mills are not coming back.
The park would make for a win,win, win and win situation.
The big downside would be that local hunters and snow machine enthusiasts would no longer have unfettered access to the private land up there that they do now. Solutions could be found to address thier concerns.
I heard about this 5 years ago when I was in Maine from the owners of Shaw's. Seems a significant number of the locals are against the creation of a National Park because it would limit or reduce the types of use of the area. The concern I heard was no hunting or trapping and limited access for other recreational purposes.
TheCheek
05-23-2016, 07:32
Me too.
If the AT were rerouted to the new National Park/Monument it could connect with the International Appalachian Trail.
I have long thought a good name for the Park would be Appalchian Trails (plural)National Monument.
The name and reroute of the AT would give the park additional cache and renown, making it even easier to promote than it would be anyway. It would also be a huge boost to the profiles of the IAT and help insure its sustainability.
Katahdin could still be celebrated as a special blue blaze, but the issues Baxter State Park faces from AT thru hikers would be addressed, and The AT would no longer be effectively "closed" to their hikes every October. This would further spread out users of the Trail. New trails would created and the local economy would see new kinds of jobs-- the mills are not coming back.
The park would make for a win,win, win and win situation.
The big downside would be that local hunters and snow machine enthusiasts would no longer have unfettered access to the private land up there that they do now. Solutions could be found to address thier concerns.
Sure, that all sounds reasonable. What can you possibly say to assuage the "yea but it's government!" crowd?
Offshore
05-23-2016, 07:50
I think one the comments on the Post website sums it up really well:
"Property rights advocates don't want a property owner to do what she wants with her land, so that they can do what they want with her land, which they call "our land." "
Offshore
05-23-2016, 07:52
Sure, that all sounds reasonable. What can you possibly say to assuage the "yea but it's government!" crowd?
Nothing that would make a difference. Arguing with an ideologue is pointless.
rocketsocks
05-23-2016, 08:23
I think one the comments on the Post website sums it up really well:
"Property rights advocates don't want a property owner to do what she wants with her land, so that they can do what they want with her land, which they call "our land." "
yup, but what all this got to do with avacados?:-?
The government can never be trusted. Don't ever forget that. The path to slavery leads from trust in government and this country is already well on its way down that trail.
Maine has a long tradition of sharing the land with property owners. Roxanne Quimby is working on destroying that tradition and giving control to the government.
Offshore
05-23-2016, 09:23
The government can never be trusted. Don't ever forget that. The path to slavery leads from trust in government and this country is already well on its way down that trail.
Maine has a long tradition of sharing the land with property owners. Roxanne Quimby is working on destroying that tradition and giving control to the government.
Except that her son is sharing the land - having reopened the land to recreational use, including adding hiking trails. If you don't like her decision to donate the land for use as a park (rather than to cut the trees to feed a pulp mill - probably in Asia), then don't use the park. Sit at home and flood the net with your conspiracy theories and anti-gunbermit rants but recognize the rights of private property owners. The whiners up in Maine have no standing in this case. Not your land, not your decision.
The government can never be trusted.
So, who can? Jesus? Allah? Yahweh? GM? GE? Bechtel?
So, who can? Jesus? Allah? Yahweh? GM? GE? Bechtel?
No one can be trusted
Except that her son is sharing the land - having reopened the land to recreational use, including adding hiking trails. If you don't like her decision to donate the land for use as a park (rather than to cut the trees to feed a pulp mill - probably in Asia), then don't use the park. Sit at home and flood the net with your conspiracy theories and anti-gunbermit rants but recognize the rights of private property owners. The whiners up in Maine have no standing in this case. Not your land, not your decision.
Actually, the people in Maine do have a voice. It's why a national park is not a fait accompli. The government already refuses to fund the current national parks. Do you really think adding another one is going to help balance the budget? The government is turning our national parks into advertising billboards for corporations. Billboards are outlawed in Maine.
Offshore
05-23-2016, 09:44
Actually, the people in Maine do have a voice. It's why a national park is not a fait accompli. The government already refuses to fund the current national parks. Do you really think adding another one is going to help balance the budget? The government is turning our national parks into advertising billboards for corporations. Billboards are outlawed in Maine.
I'll refer you to my earlier post in the tread about arguing with an ideologue. (Be sure to recycle the aluminum foil when you change hats.)
I hope the new national park happens as well. Let us remember, Baxter State Park only exists today because the Late Gov Baxter personally purchased the 200,000+ acres piece by piece. He then gave the park to the people of Maine as a wilderness reserve over their loud objections. Today, Baxter State Park is the only positive thing in the entire Millinocket area.
But BSP wasn't given to the federal government, now was it? Who was it given to?
But BSP wasn't given to the federal government, now was it? Who was it given to?
well------it is called Baxter State Park for a reason.....
well------it is called Baxter State Park for a reason.....
Its not a state park.
Its not a state park.
Sorry---forgot that it's a private park basically run by the state...
Let us remember, Baxter State Park only exists today because the Late Gov Baxter personally purchased the 200,000+ acres piece by piece. He then gave the park to the people of Maine as a wilderness reserve over their loud objections. Today, Baxter State Park is the only positive thing in the entire Millinocket area.
Which begs the question; Why doesn't Mrs. Quimby donate it to the state?
Which begs the question; Why doesn't Mrs. Quimby donate it to the state?
Possibly she doesn't want the BSP Park Director and his cronies involved.
Datto
Sorry---forgot that it's a private park basically run by the state...
Still wrong. It's not run by the state at all, nor does it get any funding from the state.
Possibly she doesn't want the BSP Park Director and his cronies involved.
Datto
probably the best Director the park ever had.
The government can never be trusted. Don't ever forget that. The path to slavery leads from trust in government and this country is already well on its way down that trail.
Maine has a long tradition of sharing the land with property owners. Roxanne Quimby is working on destroying that tradition and giving control to the government.
I understand why a great many people would prefer the Maine woods be owned by giant paper companies (foreign and domestic) that would allow unfettered access to them by hunters, trappers, pilots and snow machine enthusiasts.
But times change-- the mills are not coming back.
The people who care most about those lands should not be thinking about next year's moose season and such, but about who might own their beloved forests when thier grand children reach their age.
To do otherwise is beyond selfish.
The Scribe
05-23-2016, 13:51
Still wrong. It's not run by the state at all, nor does it get any funding from the state.
True, it gets it's funding from user fees and the endowment Baxter left for it's management. But it is run by State employees. The Baxter State Park Authority is made up of the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Director of the Maine Forest Service (Chair).
I have mixed feelings about it. Quimby has not won many friends over the years with how she managed her land. Major snowmobile routes on the ITS system closed down arbitrarily. Other restrictions. That puts her in a hole with some of the people she is trying to win over. Lucas is working hard on that issue.
What does a NP there bring to the area? Tourism? To what? Many of the people, like myself, that are attracted to that area already go there and will continue to do so regardless if there is a park there or not. And there is no infrastructure there even if people show up. This isn't Acadia, the only other comparison people here can make regarding NP's. The SUV with plates from away that now go to Acadia, for the most part will not go to Maine Woods National Park. I think it's funny that Katahdin is predominately featured in promotion for the proposed park. And it has nothing to do with it.
I would be perfectly fine if she wanted to create another state park on the same model as Baxter, with access to snowmobiling, four-wheeling, hiking, hunting and skiing.
I would be perfectly fine if she wanted to create another state park on the same model as Baxter, with access to snowmobiling, four-wheeling, hiking, hunting and skiing.
Please correct me if I wrong, but I think BSP limits those activities far, far more than the vision set forth for the Park or National Monument.
Please correct me if I wrong, but I think BSP limits those activities far, far more than the vision set forth for the Park or National Monument.
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?
it could be that Ms. Quimby doesn't fully trust the state and would rather give her land to the federal government as a national park. I have long been puzzled why so many Mainers don't truly appreciate their own land. Is it all just a resources to be cut down or a jewel to be forever protected?
it could be that Ms. Quimby doesn't fully trust the state and would rather give her land to the federal government as a national park. I have long been puzzled why so many Mainers don't truly appreciate their own land. Is it all just a resources to be cut down or a jewel to be forever protected?
Protected from what? The ravages of Spruce budworm? The ravages of indiscriminate logging? I believe people from Maine realize that there is room for all types of recreation in the forests, as well as using the forests for its renewable resources. There is a tremendous awareness of what happens when conservation is discarded in order to seek profits at all other expenses. No one protests purchases by the AMC or The Nature Conservancy within the state. We understand that conservation is of paramount importance to the character of the state. Most people do not want another Acadia National Park and the hordes of tourist that descend on MDI every Summer. We live in Maine to avoid that crap.
Alleghanian Orogeny
05-24-2016, 06:13
If we listened to the what the locals wanted, we would never have had a single national park in the US. Screw the ignorant locals.
Thank Goodness there are a small handful of the Truly Enlightened who know what's best for each and every one of us, and who are so willing to share the light!
AO
No one can be trusted
Including Mainers that believe they have rights on anothers property.
Pedaling Fool
05-24-2016, 08:19
This subject comes up every so often and I still don't get the general angst of many. Personally, I don't care as long as the land is protected. One day, maybe I'll get the motivation to read into the locals objection....
This subject comes up every so often and I still don't get the general angst of many. Personally, I don't care as long as the land is protected. One day, maybe I'll get the motivation to read into the locals objection....
It seems many Mainers prefer the Maine woods be privately held by papers companies that supply well paying jobs, and allow hunting and fishing. They fail to realize when a mill closes, it's not likely to ever reopen and those jobs are lost. Rather than push a national facility that would help draw tourists from the coast and Acadia, Millinocket decays.
peakbagger
05-24-2016, 08:32
[QUOTE=rickb;2069123]I understand why a great many people would prefer the Maine woods be owned by giant paper companies (foreign and domestic) that would allow unfettered access to them by hunters, trappers, pilots and snow machine enthusiasts.
QUOTE]
Giant paper companies haven't owned the maine woods for about 15 to 20 years. The majority of the woods are now owned by giant Timber Management Organizations although John Malone is also a major landowner http://fortune.com/2012/09/27/meet-the-largest-landowner-in-america/Unlike the paper companies who owned land for the long term, the TMOs are out for cash flow. One odd benefit was that they figured out that selling conservation easements covers the cost of the land so there has been a record amount of land conserved from development since the paper companies sold out. One of PR games of pro fed groups is to show a map of Maine to show how little land is owned by the federal government implying that only the federal government will protect it. Once conservation and development easements are shown, the map suddenly gets a lot more color on it. The owners may change in the future but the easements are "forever" Many of the easements allow sustainable forestry and even the Nature Conservancy and the AMC log lands they own. Unlike tourism jobs, forestry jobs tend to pay a higher wage and support local sawmills.
Unfortunately a working forest doesn't meet the idealized image of what a tourist wants to see, logging is messy in the short term but the resultant regrowth is where much of the wildlife resides. The Lynx is back in Maine mostly due to clearcuts which open up the preferred habitat of their main food source snowshoe hares which thrive in regrowth. Songbirds tend to also like this regrowth habitat. The other ugly truth is the Maine woods are not static, fir and spruce stands have a limited life based on marginal soils and when they get over mature the spruce budworm visits and wipes out hundreds of thousands of acres. I was in high school when the budworm last hit the region but I remember climbing katahdin and seeing the telltale red woods left when entire stands are dead and rotting in place.
It seems many Mainers prefer the Maine woods be privately held by papers companies that supply well paying jobs, and allow hunting and fishing. They fail to realize when a mill closes, it's not likely to ever reopen and those jobs are lost. Rather than push a national facility that would help draw tourists from the coast and Acadia, Millinocket decays.
Do you really think that just because the Feds own it it magically becomes an attractive destination?
Offshore
05-24-2016, 09:13
Including Mainers that believe they have rights on anothers property.
"Hello private property owner. I'm from Maine and I'm here to help."
Do you really think that just because the Feds own it it magically becomes an attractive destination?
With a "National Park" designation? Absolutely!
peakbagger
05-24-2016, 11:03
Welcome to MWNP where the majority of the attractions are outside of the park boundary and off limits.
National parks are America's "best idea," according to Stegner. I wouldn't go that far, but few decisions allow for both land/habitat preservation and a boon to the local economy, as nearly every national park 'feasibility' study has shown. (The real financial gains are of course reserved for the oil and auto industries.)
In the meantime, Millinocket continues its slow, steady descent toward oblivion. The only thing breathing any life into it at this stage is the AT, and the one or two businesses wise enough to cater to its users; predictably, the Pelletier 'American Loggers' Family Restaurant folded last year, another victim of outmoded, archaic thinking. At this stage the few remaining locals might want to engage in some serious thinking, rather than in opinionated, uneducated rebellion. But then again, if they prefer to live quietly and in isolation, watching as more residents leave for greener pastures, proffering even more peacefulness, I can relate.
Unfortunately a working forest doesn't meet the idealized image of what a tourist wants to see, logging is messy in the short term but the resultant regrowth is where much of the wildlife resides. The Lynx is back in Maine mostly due to clearcuts which open up the preferred habitat of their main food source snowshoe hares which thrive in regrowth. Songbirds tend to also like this regrowth habitat. The other ugly truth is the Maine woods are not static, fir and spruce stands have a limited life based on marginal soils and when they get over mature the spruce budworm visits and wipes out hundreds of thousands of acres. I was in high school when the budworm last hit the region but I remember climbing katahdin and seeing the telltale red woods left when entire stands are dead and rotting in place.
Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife), and you are flat wrong. Thanks to all the logging on private lands, there is no shortage of young forest in Maine. What there is a shortage of is mature forest left untouched and allowed to reach maturity. Like young forest, old forest also has a number of unique species. But most forests in Maine are logged on short rotations so the forests never reach maturity.
As for spruce budworm eventually wiping out the forests, that's not even true. There are periodic budworm outbreaks, but they don't kill all the trees. And when a natural outbreak happens, it's natural and not something to be avoided. No one who knows anything about ecology would say that we should log the forests to prevent a natural disturbance. If the budworm comes and kills large numbers of trees, it's the same result anyway. But unlike logging, budworm outbreaks are actually fantastic for mature forest birds, which come in huge numbers to affected areas and raise lots of young off that huge food resource. Also budworm outbreaks leave behind tons of nutrients that help to build up the soil. Logging takes all of that away and compacts the soils when vehicles run over everything. Plus the logged areas are often planted with a monoculture of trees and herbicides are used to suppress broad-leafed trees like birches that are less valuable. Budworm outbreaks let the forest regenerate itself with more diversity.
No one said that forests are static. But it would be nice to have a few places in Maine where the natural processes are allowed to happen without people coming in every few decades and logging all the trees. The argument that we shouldn't have a national park because we somehow need more logging is simply ignorant.
Pedaling Fool
05-24-2016, 12:38
Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife), and you are flat wrong. Thanks to all the logging on private lands, there is no shortage of young forest in Maine. What there is a shortage of is mature forest left untouched and allowed to reach maturity. Like young forest, old forest also has a number of unique species. But most forests in Maine are logged on short rotations so the forests never reach maturity.
As for spruce budworm eventually wiping out the forests, that's not even true. There are periodic budworm outbreaks, but they don't kill all the trees. And when a natural outbreak happens, it's natural and not something to be avoided. No one who knows anything about ecology would say that we should log the forests to prevent a natural disturbance. If the budworm comes and kills large numbers of trees, it's the same result anyway. But unlike logging, budworm outbreaks are actually fantastic for mature forest birds, which come in huge numbers to affected areas and raise lots of young off that huge food resource. Also budworm outbreaks leave behind tons of nutrients that help to build up the soil. Logging takes all of that away and compacts the soils when vehicles run over everything. Plus the logged areas are often planted with a monoculture of trees and herbicides are used to suppress broad-leafed trees like birches that are less valuable. Budworm outbreaks let the forest regenerate itself with more diversity.
No one said that forests are static. But it would be nice to have a few places in Maine where the natural processes are allowed to happen without people coming in every few decades and logging all the trees. The argument that we shouldn't have a national park because we somehow need more logging is simply ignorant.
So what's the deal?
Are fungi the reason we don't have more coal or not?
This says we would have much more coal if it were not for white rot fungi: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mushroom-evolution-breaks-down-lignin-slows-coal-formation/
However, this very recent article says that it's a "neat story", but that's about it, just a story.... http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-earths-coal-made-all-at-once/
So what's the deal?
Are fungi the reason we don't have more coal or not?
This says we would have much more coal if it were not for white rot fungi: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mushroom-evolution-breaks-down-lignin-slows-coal-formation/
However, this very recent article says that it's a "neat story", but that's about it, just a story.... http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-earths-coal-made-all-at-once/
I have no idea what you're talking nor what this has to do with the Maine national park.
Alleghanian Orogeny
05-24-2016, 13:07
Hi, I'm an actual ecologist.........
That's nice, but it doesn't mean you're smarter than anybody else.
.............screw the ignorant locals.
.............is simply ignorant.
Twice in the same discussion you refer to those who don't see things your way as ignorant.
May I suggest you might be more successful in persuading people that your ecology degree is of inherent value and your opinions are thus more meaningful if you were to refrain from puffing up about the degree (we get it--you've told us repeatedly you have a degree in ecology) within a discussion in which you repeatedly call people who don't agree with you ignorant.
One attracts flies with honey. Getting your point across normally requires not insulting the listener right from the start.
AO
peakbagger
05-24-2016, 13:13
If the desire is to maintain a mature forest untouched forever why go to the extra hassle of making a national park?. There are plenty of entities that would gladly hold a wilderness preservation easement on the land that the owner would like to donate. The Nature Conservancy owns Big Reed township and manages it as an old growth forest for what I expect to be a lot less cost as they intentional rarely even publicize it. If the MWNP becomes a national park, staffing and infrastructure has to move in to support it and I expect the much publicized endowment will be long gone just to cover the infrastructure needs. Far better to put an easement on it, remove the access roads and let it sit.
I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. Maybe some local will make it big in country music and build Gatlinburg north on the way in ;).
Hi, I'm an actual ecologist.........
That's nice, but it doesn't mean you're smarter than anybody else.
.............screw the ignorant locals.
.............is simply ignorant.
Twice in the same discussion you refer to those who don't see things your way as ignorant.
May I suggest you might be more successful in persuading people that your ecology degree is of inherent value and your opinions are thus more meaningful if you were to refrain from puffing up about the degree (we get it--you've told us repeatedly you have a degree in ecology) within a discussion in which you repeatedly call people who don't agree with you ignorant.
One attracts flies with honey. Getting your point across normally requires not insulting the listener right from the start.
AO
Yawn, I've heard this before, and I really don't care. I am old enough to know that my internet scribblings will not persuade any true believers about the park to change their minds. And I'm fine with that. Numerous studies have shown that people with strong beliefs double down on those beliefs when presented with accurate, contradictory evidence. But when I see someone claiming that science supports the anti-park position, I'm going to call BS there and correct them. I don't expect peakbagger to change his/her mind, but for others who might be on the fence or supporting the park I would like them to know that science does not support peakbagger's conclusions.
As for ignorance, I never said I was smarter than anyone--those are your words. But I am almost certainly more educated almost anyone on logging and ecology in New England. And I call people or their ideas ignorant because they lack knowledge--that's the definition of the word. It doesn't mean someone is dumb, just ill-informed. That's no surprise given the quality of our education system and the quality of media reporting on science issues. The internet does not help because it is full of incorrect or biased information. Not everyone can spend the amount of time I do reading about science. I am ignorant about plenty of subjects and happy to admit it. But logging and forest ecology is not one of those subjects.
BTW, I still maintain that locals almost everywhere are ignorant about the benefits of parks and, more importantly, selfish, as others have pointed out. If someone wants to argue that the park is going to ruin their quality of life, that's a fine (but selfish) argument. But if someone wants to argue that science says a park is a bad idea, that's just ignorant.
If the desire is to maintain a mature forest untouched forever why go to the extra hassle of making a national park?. There are plenty of entities that would gladly hold a wilderness preservation easement on the land that the owner would like to donate. The Nature Conservancy owns Big Reed township and manages it as an old growth forest for what I expect to be a lot less cost as they intentional rarely even publicize it. If the MWNP becomes a national park, staffing and infrastructure has to move in to support it and I expect the much publicized endowment will be long gone just to cover the infrastructure needs. Far better to put an easement on it, remove the access roads and let it sit.
I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. Maybe some local will make it big in country music and build Gatlinburg north on the way in ;).
First, TNC and other land trusts cannot protect land permanently. The protection would only last as long as the organization does. Easements are not permanent and can be broken at any time by paying back taxes. There was a long article about this in High Country News a few years back.
As for National Park status, the idea that a small NPS unit with relatively little scenery and far from any cities or airports would attract millions of visitors and spawn a huge gateway town is utterly ridiculous. Have you been to any parks besides the Smokies? There are small parks in the NP system that have minimal development, no major gateway town, and relatively few visitors. Off the top of my head, Capitol Reef, Black Canyon, and Great Sand Dunes all have a small footprint and small gateway towns. There are a bunch of national monuments that also have small footprints, inside the park and out. The argument that millions of people are going to descend on a medium-sized patch of woods in the middle of nowhere that is covered with snow for half the year and overrun with bugs the other half and create Gatlinburg 2 is silly.
You're really grasping at straws here. If you just want to have the woods to yourself and keep "outsiders" away then just admit it.
Per capita, Maine ranks 43 in federal tax revenue raising just a bit more than $4300 per citizen. The fed returns more than $12000 per citizen to the state of Maine in Federal spending ( a deficit of near $8000 for each citizen of the state).
Maine, you are broken. Keep doing what you're doing and the rest of us will continue to carry you. Or, maybe do something different and start carrying your own water.
Dringo? Really?
Per capita, Maine ranks 43 in federal tax revenue raising just a bit more than $4300 per citizen. The fed returns more than $12000 per citizen to the state of Maine in Federal spending ( a deficit of near $8000 for each citizen of the state).
Maine, you are broken. Keep doing what you're doing and the rest of us will continue to carry you. Or, maybe do something different and start carrying your own water.
Dringo? Really?
Its awesome that you quote that when the vast majority of fed spending in Maine is Bath Iron Works and Portsmouth Navel Shipyard.
Pedaling Fool
05-24-2016, 14:59
...nor what this has to do with the Maine national park.That ship sailed a long time ago, this thread is way off course from the OP.
I have no idea what you're talking...Wow and you say this: "Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife..."
Yeah, OK, whatever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ :D
That ship sailed a long time ago, this thread is way off course from the OP.
Wow and you say this: "Hi, I'm an actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years (if I gave my name, which I'm not, you could look up my many publications on early-successional forests and their wildlife..."
So, because I'm an ecologist, I'm supposed to know about how coal is formed? That's geology, dude.
Pedaling Fool
05-24-2016, 15:33
So, because I'm an ecologist, I'm supposed to know about how coal is formed? That's geology, dude.You as an "actual ecologist" should know that there are no clear lines that separate many sciences. My question wasn't just about coal, it dealt with evolution and interactions between different organisms. I didn't really expect you to know the correct answer, just curious of your position.
You failed miserably. If you are an "actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years...", then I do have to question your knowledge in your field. I'm not impressed...
You as an "actual ecologist" should know that there are no clear lines that separate many sciences. My question wasn't just about coal, it dealt with evolution and interactions between different organisms. I didn't really expect you to know the correct answer, just curious of your position.
You failed miserably. If you are an "actual ecologist who has studied early-successional forests for years...", then I do have to question your knowledge in your field. I'm not impressed...
I always get a good laugh when non-scientists try to question my knowledge about my speciality. Please tell me the exact reason why I need to understand coal formation in order to be an expert on the ecology of early-successional forests in New England. I see zero connection. If I tried to publish a paper on coal formation in an ecology journal I would get laughed out of the room.
Ecology and geology are different fields. The fact that you say there are no clear lines does not make it true.
If you'd like to insult me further, please PM me so people can discuss the Maine park in this thread.
Has anyone explored the idea of a national forest, instead of a national park? Could that be a fallback compromise?
USFS national forests operate under a very different set of rules and priorities than do national parks. More uses are permitted, some of which might not be appealing to everyone here. But the AT and many other great trails are at least partially routed through national forests, and for the most part a diversity of users learn to coexist well enough.
So long as logging and other resource extractions are based on what's good for the forest, not a company's bottom line, that seems to work well enough in many national forests. They do control who does what, when -- often through auctions which specify many details of what is and isn't permitted, when it can be done, etc.
Also, hunting and other recreational activities including equestrian, ORV traveling, bicycling, snowmobiling, etc. would no doubt be permitted but in some cases some trails can be designated exclusively or primarily for hikers.
Just an idea. Has it been considered or researched?
I expect the real rational is that the sales pitch it to sell the "mature woods experience" and that requires convenient roads, visitor centers, park headquarters, campgrounds and scenic viewpoints so that folks can ride through the park and get the national park experience, then hit the sprawl on the border of the park for real entertainment. .
Gatlinburg, Estes Park, Moab, et al.
Abbey called it Industrial Tourism (http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/Bonine/Abbey1968_DSolitaire.pdf).
I think a MWNP itself would be a good thing. What worries me is what you alluded that happens around the park.
Mixed blessings indeed. No simple answer either.
As for National Park status, the idea that a small NPS unit with relatively little scenery and far from any cities or airports would attract millions of visitors and spawn a huge gateway town is utterly ridiculous.
Millions? No. But a national park does impact the area quite a bit even more so than a national monument designation. Moab was a sleepy little town. So was Jackson, WY.
Interesting video... https://vimeo.com/49544042
Has anyone explored the idea of a national forest, instead of a national park? Could that be a fallback compromise?
Interesting idea. In this high charged political discussion, not sure if would be considered unfortunately.
Giant paper companies haven't owned the maine woods for about 15 to 20 years.
Fair point. I recall you correcting me on that some time (years) back and no doubt my characterization was simplistic. But the fact remains that ownership is changing and changing fast and seeing some swaths protected by a diversity of organizations is good, I think.
To my way of thinking, having some small portion of the lands protected by the AMC or by a private individual whose preference is to have thier personal property given to, and administered by, the Natioanl Park Service is a good thing. This is not Restore taking over humongous tracts using taxpayer monies.
But this is an AT site, so I just want to state again how great I think the park would be for the trail.
Baxter State Park is wonderful beyond words, but routing the AT to a National Park and connecting it to the IAT would be something special for generations. IT would be transformative in a great way, and address so many issues that are now of concern-- and do what parks do best -- bring Americans and people from all over the world out to enjoy what we love so much.
Easements offered up by Weyerhouser are just not the same -- even if they cover 4x as many acres as this park.
Heliotrope
05-25-2016, 00:16
I think one the comments on the Post website sums it up really well:
"Property rights advocates don't want a property owner to do what she wants with her land, so that they can do what they want with her land, which they call "our land." "
Exactly my thought!
Including Mainers that believe they have rights on anothers property.
So if I bought property next to your house, I can start a junkyard there, dump trash and burn tires on my property, just because its my property, correct?
Offshore
05-25-2016, 08:54
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.
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.
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
05-25-2016, 09:27
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
05-25-2016, 09:35
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
05-25-2016, 09:38
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.
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
05-25-2016, 13:15
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.
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
05-25-2016, 23:55
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.
"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.
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
05-26-2016, 09:18
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.
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
05-26-2016, 11:06
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.
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
05-26-2016, 11:29
"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.
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.
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
Traveler
05-26-2016, 12:42
Baxter is remote and very limited access. I'm not sure those are ideal attributes for a National Park.
A lot of national parks have limited access points and are rather remote, I don't believe that plays into the locations much. Land donations are not at all uncommon to see gifted to the NPS, though usually its names like Rockefeller associated with the land transfers. Zoning regulations in parts of various states have always been a contentious issue, without them you may have a nice neighbor home build, or a transportation center for hazmat. In this instance without a zoning prohibition, any use of that land is allowable by the owners. With the endowment used to fund care, its not a taxpayer burden.
Neighboring property owners have limited input to what owners can do with their property or whom they can sell/transfer land to. It doesn't take much to imagine the problems that would be created by neighbors objections to sale or transfer to certain people or groups.
Honestly didn't know Lucas and his brother were thru-hikers.
And his Sister.
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.
Big deal, "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."
Hardly worth creating another hard to fund national park because of a few thru hikers associated with Quimby, LOL.
Where is the money to support a 3 month tourist attraction after Quimby's money runs out ?
Traveler
05-28-2016, 08:07
Big deal, "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."
Hardly worth creating another hard to fund national park because of a few thru hikers associated with Quimby, LOL.
Where is the money to support a 3 month tourist attraction after Quimby's money runs out ?
Endowments of the size proposed for the area involved rarely run out. They are professionally managed and conservatively invested.
People claim doom and gloom when people donate tracks of land to the NPS, some of which are not all that remarkable in terms of views or attractiveness, others very remarkable and really ticks off developers. Rockefeller was chastised similarly.
Pedaling Fool
05-28-2016, 08:28
Rockefeller was chastised similarly.Not by me, I like the Rockefellers:)
http://www.x-ppac.org/OSTP.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/09/24/why-is-hillary-clinton-talking-to-laurence-rockefeller-holding-a-book-about-extraterrestrials/
Why is Hillary Clinton talking to Lawrence Rockefeller & holding a book about Extraterrestrials? :D
http://cdn2.collective-evolution.com/assets/uploads/2015/09/are-we-alone-759x500.png
BlackCloud
05-28-2016, 21:32
Well Mr. Burger,
I would suggest you reread the Secretary's statement. He did not limit park creation to scenery. Also, I do not live in the 1910s. I am a lawyer. I live in facts. The fact of the matter is that the mission of the National Park Service is codified in law and the ensuing regulations direct agency operations; your personal world view does not.
In addition, your history of the agency is all wrong. Preserving scenery was only one goal. Park creators had concern for the animals, the thermals, and the ancient ruins. Some of the very first parks were Hot Springs NP in AR and Mesa Verde NP in CO. The NPS exists because of John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who was as or more concerned with preserving ecosystems and places for quite reflection as anything else.
Finally, I once hiked the AT in fog so thick I could barely see my hands. There was no scenery. That was the only time. The common definition of scenery is not limited to endless views of the horizon; even though your personal definition apparently does.
Widen your gaze Mr. Burger.
Well Mr. Burger,
I would suggest you reread the Secretary's statement. He did not limit park creation to scenery. Also, I do not live in the 1910s. I am a lawyer. I live in facts. The fact of the matter is that the mission of the National Park Service is codified in law and the ensuing regulations direct agency operations; your personal world view does not.
In addition, your history of the agency is all wrong. Preserving scenery was only one goal. Park creators had concern for the animals, the thermals, and the ancient ruins. Some of the very first parks were Hot Springs NP in AR and Mesa Verde NP in CO. The NPS exists because of John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who was as or more concerned with preserving ecosystems and places for quite reflection as anything else.
Finally, I once hiked the AT in fog so thick I could barely see my hands. There was no scenery. That was the only time. The common definition of scenery is not limited to endless views of the horizon; even though your personal definition apparently does.
Widen your gaze Mr. Burger.
My wife calls me Mr. Burger. To everyone else, it's Dr. Burger.
Traveler
05-29-2016, 05:59
Doktari..... it does have a ring to it.
rocketsocks
05-29-2016, 06:57
Baxter is remote and very limited access. I'm not sure those are ideal attributes for a National Park.
Interesting, I'm of the exact opposite opinion, and think it's perfect for a start to return or leave untouched wilderness areas to age gracefully. If you can get there by walkin' great! If ya can't, than just know it's there untouched by man, that outta be enough.
Deer Hunter
06-07-2016, 08:59
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/06/maines-governor-fights-to-block-national-monument-designation/
ScottishLass
06-07-2016, 09:51
If we listened to the what the locals wanted, we would never have had a single national park in the US. Screw the ignorant locals.
That's a pleasant attitude.
ScottishLass
06-07-2016, 09:54
Me too.
If the AT were rerouted to the new National Park/Monument it could connect with the International Appalachian Trail.
I have long thought a good name for the Park would be Appalchian Trails (plural)National Monument.
The name and reroute of the AT would give the park additional cache and renown, making it even easier to promote than it would be anyway. It would also be a huge boost to the profiles of the IAT and help insure its sustainability.
Katahdin could still be celebrated as a special blue blaze, but the issues Baxter State Park faces from AT thru hikers would be addressed, and The AT would no longer be effectively "closed" to their hikes every October. This would further spread out users of the Trail. New trails would created and the local economy would see new kinds of jobs-- the mills are not coming back.
The park would make for a win,win, win and win situation.
The big downside would be that local hunters and snow machine enthusiasts would no longer have unfettered access to the private land up there that they do now. Solutions could be found to address thier concerns.
This is a thoughtful and articulate response. There's still plenty of land that would be available to hunters and snow mobilers.
peakbagger
06-07-2016, 11:43
Rerouting the AT around the BSP would be interesting. It was attempted when the proposed route of the IAT was rejected by the park but the current "wink wink" approach of starting the IAT formal route at the easterly park boundary was adopted instead. The 100 mile wilderness corridor was aligned to line up with Abol Bridge as the next bridge over the West Branch is in Millinocket. The Penobscot river is far nastier than the Kennebec river crossing and requires a boat to cross. Thus the reroute would practically cross Abol Bridge and then an approximately 8 mile new corridor would have to be patched up along the south boundary of the park and then south around the Togue Ponds and then eventually north to the SE corner of BSP where it would then pick up the proposed MWNM to pick up the current IAT alignment east of Katahdin Lake at the park boundary. I expect BSP might elect to stop ignoring IAT folks leaving the park through the Katahdin Lake addition if the numbers picked up and thus the Katahdin blue blaze would be an a multiday out and back beginning and ending at the park boundary near Abol bridge. Given the issues with dealing with thru hikers with no reservations I expect the park would probably close down access to only those with reservations entering the park via Abol Bridge.
The comment about the park being closed is more of practical thing than a regulatory thing. Winter typically moves into the summit by early to mid october and few thru hikers are equipped for the winter conditions they may encounter nor is there any staff available for rescue when folks inevitably get in trouble.