View Full Version : Another Maine National Park?
Roxanne Quimby, founder of "Burts Bees," wants to donate 70,000 acres located between Baxter State Paark and the East Branch of the Penobscot River to the National Park Service.
If accepted, the new park would be twice the size of Acadia National Park, and almost twice the size of the corridor that protects the Appalachian Trail in Maine, the only other National Park lands in the state.
You can read the details at:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/another-national-park-in-maine__2011-03-28.html?searchterm=quimby#
Around a decade ago, Quimby sold 80 percent interest in Burts Bees to investors, and four years ago her remaining 20% interest, for a total of $350 million. She has purchased around 100,000 acres of forest land in Maine since selling her business interests.
Quimby came to Maine as part of the 70s back to the land movement. She and her boy friend built their plumbing-less home on 30 acres in central Maine. She founded Burts Bees in 1985 as a crafts project, selling bees wax candles and lip balm at county fairs. As the business prospered she moved it to the south (Georgia I think).
But after the sales she moved to Portland Maine where charitable foundations she founded, purchased lands, supported the arts. and groups such as the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.
double d
03-28-2011, 11:21
That is a great donation to protect the land forever, especially in the location of the land she will donate.
WingedMonkey
03-28-2011, 12:12
Don't under estimate the off road vehicle hunting crowd. The original plan was to have Big Cypress Reserve's 720,000 acres made a National Park or part of Everglades National Park after the land was acquired. Heavy pressure from the ORV and hunting lobby (all of my family hunts by the way) changed those plans.
"Big Cypress National Preserve was one of the first national preserves within the National Park System. As a preserve, Big Cypress manages for a broader range of recreational activities, including hunting and off-road vehicle access."It is that off road use that is now doing the most damage to the area and even long time hunters are wishing for more control of access.
The southern terminus of the Florida Trail begins here and the battle is constant to keep ORV's off of the trail corridor.
double d
03-28-2011, 14:20
WingedMonkey, I was in South Fla. this past winter and I can say that I there were numerous booths set up by hunters/off roaders at Big Cyrpress NF who wanted to end the National Preserve! Why accommodate these folks? Whats next, building golf courses on National Forest land?
This is a wonderful opportunity to protect some important parts of the Maine wildlands. But it will not be an easy fight. Roxanne has made some powerful enemies among the motorized crowd. And opponents of public land have taken over the Maine Legislature and governor's office.
But she is also a savy business woman, who managed to earn $350 million against great odds. She is on the board of a national parks support organization, which gives her an in with the national parks people in Washington.
She seems also to have won the respect, if not the support, of the state's largest hunting and fishing organization.
I remember hearing rumors of "North Woods NP" incorporating Baxter and additional lands. Is this the same deal?
WingedMonkey
03-28-2011, 16:11
WingedMonkey, I was in South Fla. this past winter and I can say that I there were numerous booths set up by hunters/off roaders at Big Cyrpress NF who wanted to end the National Preserve! Why accommodate these folks? Whats next, building golf courses on National Forest land?
HOBE SOUND—
Someday you might be able to strap the kayak to the top of the car, the bicycle to the rack on back, then throw the golf clubs inside the back with the camping gear, all for a trip to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.
State Rep. Pat Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, filed a bill on Friday that would allow at least five Jack Nicklaus (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/sports/jack-nicklaus-PESPT005405.topic)-designed golf courses to be built on state park land, including one capable of hosting a U.S. Open (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/sports/golf/u.s.-open-golf-EVSPR000018.topic) within the 61-year-old, 11,500-acre park in southern Martin County named for a shipwrecked Quaker merchant.
House Bill 1239, with the companion bill Senate Bill 1846 sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, requires the construction of an 18-hole or more public golf course in the parks, "free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements," as a means to enhance tourism and create jobs.
Rooney said Nicklaus, a North Palm Beach resident, met with Gov. Rick Scott (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/politics/government/rick-scott-PEPLT00007609.topic) just over a month ago to brainstorm ways to improve the economy, and later approached the Rooney family.
"We're trying to do something for tourism that's going to add some jobs, bring in some construction, and hopefully be a tourism draw," said Rooney, the chairman of the Palm Beach County (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/) Golf Association. "I'm sure [Nicklaus] would work with as many environmental groups as possible to ensure the environmental elements there aren't compromised."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-nicklaus-golf-trail-20110309,0,6975662.story
This is the closest Florida State park to me, and has a connector to the Florida Trail via the planned Ocean to Lake Trail.
It should be noted that the "Ronney Family" of the Tea Party clan, owns the local Dog Track/Poker concession and the Pittsburg Steelers. Also his brother is a member of the U.S. House from here.
Sorry didn't mean to get of topic here.
I remember hearing rumors of "North Woods NP" incorporating Baxter and additional lands. Is this the same deal?
No. A plan similar to what you remember was floated in the 1930's but was rejected by Gov. Baxter, who was buying what is now Baxter State Park bit by bit and giving it to the state.
Twenty years or so ago a group that calls itself "Restore The North Woods," proposed a 3 million acre "Maine woods national park," that excluded Baxter. That effort is still floating about. Roxanne Quimby's proposal incorporates 70,000 acres of that proposal. And, if created, seems likely to boost interest in Restore's proposal.
But I doubt if a 3 million acre Maine Woods National Park is likely to happen anytime soon in the current political and budgetary climate, if ever.
takethisbread
03-28-2011, 17:31
i guess i am a cynic.
Aside i must admit that Baxter is National Park worthy and the Maine woods are the most magnificent part of The AT and a true national treasure.
but at the same time i cant help but look at the motivation of ms Quimby. Perhaps, with recent property assesments more in line with market values, the tax burden becomes an issue.
Secondly, are the taxpayers in a position to lose the tax revenue on 70,000 acres of land? their rights must be considered, as the extra burden by lost revenues will fall upon those residents.
i suppose everything is as philanthropic as it seems, but a larger National Park in Maine that includes Baxter makes sense. If it doesnt, then i ask what is the point?
i guess i am a cynic.
Aside i must admit that Baxter is National Park worthy and the Maine woods are the most magnificent part of The AT and a true national treasure.
but at the same time i cant help but look at the motivation of ms Quimby. Perhaps, with recent property assesments more in line with market values, the tax burden becomes an issue.
Secondly, are the taxpayers in a position to lose the tax revenue on 70,000 acres of land? their rights must be considered, as the extra burden by lost revenues will fall upon those residents.
i suppose everything is as philanthropic as it seems, but a larger National Park in Maine that includes Baxter makes sense. If it doesnt, then i ask what is the point?
Baxter is well run by the state and doesn't cost taxpayers anything. The good governor when he died left his remaining legacy to his park, the income from which, along with fees, pays the entire cost.
The point of Roxanne's proposal is that it protects 70,000 acres of land that had she not purchased it would by now ring the park with condos and other development.
She didn't buy the 70,000 acres for development. It was always scheduled for protection. Her plan is to turn it over to the federal government on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National park service five years from now.
Taxes truly have nothing to do with her plans. She's given away millions of dollars since getting out of Burt's Bees. Her proposed gift is another part of the legacy she hopes to leave behind when her time on this earth ends.
Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."
WingedMonkey
03-28-2011, 18:06
Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."
I notice in the article that some still consider her an outsider because she wasn't born there.
As if all the people that hunt, snowmobile, ORV, and fish in Maine were born in Maine, or even live there.
And the big developers buying used up pulp paper forest lands certainly are not local.
Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person.
Thanks for the update, Weary.
I always knew making money was hard, but could never have imagined how difficult it could be to give it away for others to enjoy. She really must be a remarkable individual indeed for staying true to her vision in Maine.
If anyone thinks the Baxter people would allow themselves to be absorbed into a NP, they are naive. Ms. Quimby is ahead of her time.
Maybe next century.
takethisbread
03-28-2011, 19:37
Baxter is well run by the state and doesn't cost taxpayers anything. The good governor when he died left his remaining legacy to his park, the income from which, along with fees, pays the entire cost.
The point of Roxanne's proposal is that it protects 70,000 acres of land that had she not purchased it would by now ring the park with condos and other development.
She didn't buy the 70,000 acres for development. It was always scheduled for protection. Her plan is to turn it over to the federal government on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National park service five years from now.
Taxes truly have nothing to do with her plans. She's given away millions of dollars since getting out of Burt's Bees. Her proposed gift is another part of the legacy she hopes to leave behind when her time on this earth ends.
Like Persival Baxter who spent a lifetime creating Baxter, Roxanne is a remarkable person. She began her business career as a hippie, living in a tiny cabin, with an outhouse for a toilet. Within 15 years the business she created was the envy of the business world. She sold it with the idea of giving away all the profit from those 15 years to protect a bit of the Maine woods, which as you rightly note are "a true national treasure."
Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.
While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.
Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
WingedMonkey
03-28-2011, 20:27
I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need. Can you think of a National Park we don't need and should sell and make back into private land?
Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.
While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.
Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
Two thoughts. Over the years, my wife and I have visited most of the National Parks. A couple of years ago my wife and I spent six weeks exploring all of the northern tier of National Parks, from Acadia to Olympic.
My conclusion from all these park visits was that the proposed: Maine Woods National Park would be the equal to or greater than all.
As for the right of the public decide. Nearly a dozen referendums over the past many years have approved bond issues for the "Land for Maine's Future" program by lopsided margins. The law doesn't allow an up or down referendum vote on this particular proposal, as I understand it. But I have no doubt of the outcome should such a vote be held. People we elect to the Legislature, however oppose a park.
That's a mystery I still haven't resolved. But I suspect the legislature, unlike the public, tends to be subject to the pressure from lobbyists with reelection caSH to donate.
double d
03-28-2011, 21:23
HOBE SOUND—
Someday you might be able to strap the kayak to the top of the car, the bicycle to the rack on back, then throw the golf clubs inside the back with the camping gear, all for a trip to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.
State Rep. Pat Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, filed a bill on Friday that would allow at least five Jack Nicklaus (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/sports/jack-nicklaus-PESPT005405.topic)-designed golf courses to be built on state park land, including one capable of hosting a U.S. Open (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/sports/golf/u.s.-open-golf-EVSPR000018.topic) within the 61-year-old, 11,500-acre park in southern Martin County named for a shipwrecked Quaker merchant.
House Bill 1239, with the companion bill Senate Bill 1846 sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, requires the construction of an 18-hole or more public golf course in the parks, "free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements," as a means to enhance tourism and create jobs.
Rooney said Nicklaus, a North Palm Beach resident, met with Gov. Rick Scott (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/politics/government/rick-scott-PEPLT00007609.topic) just over a month ago to brainstorm ways to improve the economy, and later approached the Rooney family.
"We're trying to do something for tourism that's going to add some jobs, bring in some construction, and hopefully be a tourism draw," said Rooney, the chairman of the Palm Beach County (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/) Golf Association. "I'm sure [Nicklaus] would work with as many environmental groups as possible to ensure the environmental elements there aren't compromised."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-nicklaus-golf-trail-20110309,0,6975662.story
This is the closest Florida State park to me, and has a connector to the Florida Trail via the planned Ocean to Lake Trail.
It should be noted that the "Ronney Family" of the Tea Party clan, owns the local Dog Track/Poker concession and the Pittsburg Steelers. Also his brother is a member of the U.S. House from here.
Sorry didn't mean to get of topic here.
wow, thanks for the update!
double d
03-28-2011, 21:27
Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.
While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.
Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
by development, you mean more people, more infrastructure (schools, roads, waste management, etc.), means more taxes to support those local/state government jobs-buildings, so by creating a national park, aren't we in reality saving alot of money by not developing the land and keeping it in its true form (wilderness)?
These are not easily resolved issues. Development in fact brings jobs. Mostly short term jobs. It takes people to build condos. summer camps, luxury resorts, whatever.
But those jobs are shortlived. That's my worry, that we as a society are willing to give up long term goals, for short term jobs.
You know, several of our current National Parks were initiallly opposed by some of the local populations. Those same populations latter were glad they lost the fight when the parks brought in tourism dollars.
Leanthree
03-28-2011, 22:28
She totally stole my idea of what to do with my first $200 million. All I need is a vast personal fortune for it to come true.
_____
For all those of you all who think that the land doesn't warrant National Park status, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be preserved at the recommendation of the lands' owner. There are plenty of private land trusts or universities with land trusts that would preserve the land if the National Park doesn't want it.
Further, there are lesser known national parks like Rock Creek Park in DC that aren't of grand canyon caliber.
... I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need. ...
My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
???
Most public opinion surveys show people support national and state parks and protecting wild areas. Do you think we should start shutting down our NPs? Not ever sure what you mean by "non-essential land." Land is land. What we do with this or that parcel of it is the question. Except at the very margins, it is not ours to create or destroy land, "essential" or "non."
And why on earth do you question Ms. Quimby's motives? Puzzling. It's a bad thing to want to give beautiful natural areas to the people at large for preservation and recreation? What less sinister use of the land would you recommend?
Can you think of a National Park we don't need and should sell and make back into private land?
I would start by shedding any childhood home of a president.
WingedMonkey
03-29-2011, 12:04
I would start by shedding any childhood home of a president.
While no presidents were born in Maine, I imagine towns where these sites bring in tourist dollars are glad they are there and supported preserving them.
They may also find that they are a good return back on the money they send to Washington.
I would start by shedding any childhood home of a president.
Same conclusion if it's revenue positive, taking into account fees and private endowment?
While no presidents were born in Maine, I imagine towns where these sites bring in tourist dollars are glad they are there and supported preserving them.
They may also find that they are a good return back on the money they send to Washington.
Let the local town or state deal with them.
Same conclusion if it's revenue positive, taking into account fees and private endowment?
Yes. I see too much at a local NP. System is too large.
Do you really feel a beat up house in the boondocks should be a national park?
WingedMonkey
03-29-2011, 16:44
Let the local town or state deal with them.
And we should do the same with the Appalachian Trail?
Jack Tarlin
03-29-2011, 17:33
This is a great idea, and these are good people, too, who have long had more than a passing connection with the Trail (Ms. Quimby's daughter is a former thru-hiker). Instead of questioning her motives I think we should instead be admiring her forsight and philanthropy.
Do you really feel a beat up house in the boondocks should be a national park?
Name me one that is and I'll take your question seriously. A beat up house in the boondocks that is a national park. Get back to me on that.
This is a great idea, and these are good people, too, who have long had more than a passing connection with the Trail (Ms. Quimby's daughter is a former thru-hiker). Instead of questioning her motives I think we should instead be admiring her forsight and philanthropy.
Spot on, Jack.
And apart from her direct support of the Trail and ATC and ATMuseum and all the rest, I very much like what she and her family is doing to help the volunteers working so hard at smaller community-based organizations.
As I am sure that she and her family finds the work of those group inspiring, I find what she is doing to be truly worth of admiration as well.
Those interested might take visit http://www.quimbyfamilyfoundation.org
some people like to hike, some like to birdwatch, some like to canoe, some like to fish, some like to camp. What is wrong with some liking to play golf? Should we not have National Parks that provide golfing opportunity?
Lemni Skate
03-30-2011, 08:59
When you give land like this to the National government you don't know what's going to happen.
I wonder what the ATC would have done if they had been given the land.
Pedaling Fool
03-30-2011, 09:14
This is a great idea, and these are good people, too, who have long had more than a passing connection with the Trail (Ms. Quimby's daughter is a former thru-hiker). Instead of questioning her motives I think we should instead be admiring her forsight and philanthropy.
Here, here
Here, hear
Hear, Hear
Hear, here
Which one is it:-?:confused: At any rate, which ever...
When you give land like this to the National government you don't know what's going to happen.
I wonder what the ATC would have done if they had been given the land.
Except for a few state lands, the national government owns virtually all of the trail corridor. The ATC owns none of the trail corridor. ATC is not in the land owning business. It is in the trail management business, and serves as the intermediary between the local maintaining clubs and the government.
To be sure one never knows what Congress. which has to distribute the tax dollars we pay, will do. But overall I think the management of the National Park system is reasonably wise. I think we can reasonably expect a new national park in Maine will have about the same happenings as the existing national parks do.
Name me one that is and I'll take your question seriously. A beat up house in the boondocks that is a national park. Get back to me on that.
http://www.nps.gov/jaga/index.htm
http://www.nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisit/visitboyhoodhome.htm
http://www.nps.gov/liho/index.htm
You can search the nps at the upper left.
Isn't there one near the Mall that has major structural issues, drainage etc.
NRR.
double d
03-30-2011, 10:14
This is a great idea, and these are good people, too, who have long had more than a passing connection with the Trail (Ms. Quimby's daughter is a former thru-hiker). Instead of questioning her motives I think we should instead be admiring her forsight and philanthropy.
Well said.
double d
03-30-2011, 10:23
When you give land like this to the National government you don't know what's going to happen.
I wonder what the ATC would have done if they had been given the land.
I think you need to re-read the 1968 National Scenic Trails Act. Also, Rocky Mountain National Park was founded in 1916 in Colorado. Before 1916, it had a 18 hole golf course that was privately owned. Real nice use by their private owners.
A poll in the Bangor Daily News asking if their readers favor the creation of a Maine Woods National Park is running 2-1 in favor of the idea.
http://www.nps.gov/jaga/index.htm
http://www.nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisit/visitboyhoodhome.htm
http://www.nps.gov/liho/index.htm
You can search the nps at the upper left.
Isn't there one near the Mall that has major structural issues, drainage etc.
NRR.
I'm not sure if any of those qualify as a "beat up house in the boondocks". Unless your metric here is something the Rockefellers lived in.
Sorry, as a maine resident i would hate to see a national park created in the north maine woods.
We already have plenty of other parks you can visit without creating more pressure on wildlife in already accessible areas.
Maine Parks, historic site and public reserved lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maine_state_parks)
I would support it going to public reserved lands though.
NO NEW NATIONAL PARKS HERE !
TheRaven
07-11-2011, 11:25
As a maine resident as well I support creating a national park, or at least a national forestland in all of northern maine from Moosehead north. The logging companies are not managing the land well....just research Plum Creek for a good example. I say make it wild and prevent motorized access with the exception of a few access routes.
As a maine resident as well I support creating a national park, or at least a national forestland in all of northern maine from Moosehead north. The logging companies are not managing the land well....just research Plum Creek for a good example. I say make it wild and prevent motorized access with the exception of a few access routes.
Such a forestland would be unequaled anywhere in north america, perhaps in the world. As would a typical National Park for that matter.
As a maine resident as well I support creating a national park, or at least a national forestland in all of northern maine from Moosehead north. The logging companies are not managing the land well....just research Plum Creek for a good example. I say make it wild and prevent motorized access with the exception of a few access routes.
Never going to happen. Aside from the logging there is quite a bit of recreation that requires motorized access. Of course, if logging ended, the roads would quickly fall into disrepair.
Sorry, as a maine resident i would hate to see a national park created in the north maine woods.
We already have plenty of other parks you can visit without creating more pressure on wildlife in already accessible areas.
Maine Parks, historic site and public reserved lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maine_state_parks)
I would support it going to public reserved lands though.
NO NEW NATIONAL PARKS HERE !
I would wager that the amount of area that is easily accesible by the public to any new national park in the North Maine Woods would be not that big compared to the rest of the park. By making it a National Park it makes it a federal crime to poach in it or use ORVs. If, say, it becomes a giant conservation easement then you have to post bills and knock on wood that idiots won't ignore them.
TheRaven
07-12-2011, 10:09
Never going to happen. Aside from the logging there is quite a bit of recreation that requires motorized access. Of course, if logging ended, the roads would quickly fall into disrepair.
I fought for years for motorized access with my motorcycle, then after taking up hiking again I enjoy NOT hearing engines. Funny how views can change.
Heck I hate ORV/ATVs but the fat hillbillies who use them actually see and enjoy the wilderness, albeight a different way. They may destroy areas of it, but they can appreciate it. When the decisions need to be made on the voting, those hillbillies are likely to vote for protection from development.
It's a battle with no clear winner.
If Acadia Nat Park is any example, then putting 2 million tourists in the Baxter Park area over a 2-3 mo. period would certainly ruin the experience for me . I'm surprised hikers of all people would want such a catastrophe.
Solitude be gone !
I don't think you can begin to put Acadia and the North Woods of Maine in the same category of National Park. To my knowledge there is no trail in Acadia longer than just a few miles at the most and you can see the ocean from your car.
My sense is that making the north woods into a park of some sort would do wonders for maintaining the land in it's current state as well as bring some much needed revenue (through tourism $) to the communities of northern Maine. It might also pay for the upkeep of existing roads once the logging companies leave for good. But let's not kid ourselves here, the majority of people who visit our national parks are not willing to walk more than a few hundred yards for the road. I welcome their interest (and financial support) and appreciate at the same time that they leave the backcountry to rest of us. I have little concern that it would greatly change the experience of exploring the area away from roads.
New Hampshire could use a National Park, they don't have one yet. Mt Washington Auto Road could be their "Skyline Drive". Plus its closer to major metropolitan areas for maximum tourist profit.
If Acadia Nat Park is any example, then putting 2 million tourists in the Baxter Park area over a 2-3 mo. period would certainly ruin the experience for me . I'm surprised hikers of all people would want such a catastrophe.
Solitude be gone !
Most park visitors never walk more than 200 yards to an overlook, or other attraction. On my visits to the various National Parks -- over the years, I never saw a crowded trail -- not even Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone. Even the trails at Acadia are rarely crowded.
The alternatives are not a National Park, or the status quo. It's a National Park or continued commercial and residential development. If you prefer passing condo colonies on your walks, and giant windmills on every high ridgeline, over an occasional park hiker than you are right to oppose a Maine woods National Park.
hikerboy57
07-12-2011, 14:07
New Hampshire could use a National Park, they don't have one yet. Mt Washington Auto Road could be their "Skyline Drive". Plus its closer to major metropolitan areas for maximum tourist profit.I think the next national park should be in delaware.
Itr would be hard to fit a national park in NH betwen all the national forests and wilderness areas.and Mt washington could absolutely use more tourists,they should build a second cog railway, too, to accomodate the crowds.
IBy making it a National Park it makes it a federal crime to poach in it
Doesn't slow down some fools around here. State has plenty of stiff laws including taking your vehicle.
To my knowledge there is no trail in Acadia longer than just a few miles at the most and you can see the ocean from your car.
Blackwoods to Cadillac @ 5 miles. Then you could add x amount by going back in a large array of loops. Nothing backcountry here, despite what the kiosks might tell you.
It might also pay for the upkeep of existing roads once the logging companies leave for good.
That I doubt.
[QUOTE]Even the trails at Acadia are rarely crowded.
When was the last time you hoofed it around here? Or maybe you only do before 8AM. Friggin' zoo.
The alternatives are not a National Park, or the status quo. It's a National Park or continued commercial and residential development. If you prefer passing condo colonies on your walks, and giant windmills on every high ridgeline, over an occasional park hiker than you are right to oppose a Maine woods National Park.
Or state public land or some other entity. A national park, while well intentioned, is a cash suck.
Ask Malone if he might be interested in opening his land to the public. That would be interesting.
The national parks that we already have are underfunded , in disrepair, understaffed , polluted by noisy automobiles and gas guzzling motorhomes. We hardly need another one abutting a Pristine Baxter State Park however a grandiose idea it may seem.
The feds can't maintain the parks and historic sites that they already have let alone a new one which seems highly unlikely in todays financial climate. Heck the fed. govt. can't even maintain itself.
The national parks that we already have are underfunded , in disrepair, understaffed , polluted by noisy automobiles and gas guzzling motorhomes. We hardly need another one abutting a Pristine Baxter State Park however a grandiose idea it may seem.
The feds can't maintain the parks and historic sites that they already have let alone a new one which seems highly unlikely in todays financial climate. Heck the fed. govt. can't even maintain itself.
You're right Woodsy, we should just let the whole area get developed and sold off as 1/4 acre vacation homes and country clubs over the next 20 years. The wealthiest of us can buy up this property, gate it, and visit twice a year for holidays. That sounds like a MUCH better idea. While I agree that the funding for our parks is less than adequate, I would be curious to see numbers that show that parks could not pay for themselves if the entrance & camping fees weren't getting pulled into numerous other unconneted funds. Additionally, people from all over the world come to visit our national parks and recreation areas because they are unique and not available in many other parts of the world. No offense, but I believe that allowing pristine areas like Northern Maine to get developed is a very short sighted approach to our future.
double d
07-12-2011, 20:20
The NPS could be self contained if the Feds didn't take all the money raised by entry fees at NP's like RMNP and put that money into the general fund of the Federal Government. If and only if the Feds allowed for the money raised by NP to stay in NPS could we afford to upkeep them the way we should. Also, lets protect more Maine land by allowing another NP in Maine (of course, my opinion).
....Or state public land or some other entity. A national park, while well intentioned, is a cash suck.
Ask Malone if he might be interested in opening his land to the public. That would be interesting.
No one is going to donate all the land needed to be protected. And the only public agency with pockets deep enough to buy the area is the federal government, once the present political confusion is resolved. I could live with a National Forest with significant wilderness areas. But the agency with the most savy is the National Park Service.
Maine is getting out of the land business. Significant Land For Maine Future bond issues haven't even gotten out of the Legislature, right alone to the people for a vote in years. I'm afraid it's federal dollars or no dollars. I applaud Roxanne Quimby for her efforts to stimulate a federal discussion. I hope it succeeds, and that she has the persistence of a Percival Baxter, who was equally ridiculed in his early efforts to protect Katahdin.
I'm all for preserving Maine lands and in the past have donated to such .
A 10 year study of our National Parks (http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2011/sanp-report-062811.html)was recently concluded and the findings are alarming.
Looks like we could destroy the area tryring to save it using the National Park approach.
TheRaven
07-13-2011, 08:10
National forest then....anything to get the land out of the logging companies hands...tired of seeing the bumper sticker "if you don't like logging, try using plastic toilet paper"
I'm all for preserving Maine lands and in the past have donated to such .
A 10 year study of our National Parks (http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2011/sanp-report-062811.html)was recently concluded and the findings are alarming.
Looks like we could destroy the area tryring to save it using the National Park approach.
Woodsy. The study you reference mostly attributes the damage to a general failure to protect the environment by the federal government. The damage from air and water pollution will occur regardless of the agency that takes over the neglected north Maine woods. Air quality over Acadia National Park in Maine routinely exceeds health standards for both people and vegetation. Maine pioneered water cleanup laws, but is dependent on federal standards for the quality of our air.
Other damage results from the lack of proper financing, which effects National Parks and National Forests. The Maine Appalachian TRail Club has been told to expect declining support from federal dollars. ATC reorganized itself a few years ago in an attempt to work independently of federal assistance.
Nor are state lands any better off. State parks throughout the nation are routinely threatened with closure from a lack of funds.
You're right Woodsy, we should just let the whole area get developed and sold off as 1/4 acre vacation homes and country clubs over the next 20 years. The wealthiest of us can buy up this property, gate it, and visit twice a year for holidays. That sounds like a MUCH better idea.
Now you know that is the furthest thing on his mind.
The NPS could be self contained if the Feds didn't take all the money raised by entry fees at NP's like RMNP and put that money into the general fund of the Federal Government. If and only if the Feds allowed for the money raised by NP to stay in NPS could we afford to upkeep them the way we should. Also, lets protect more Maine land by allowing another NP in Maine (of course, my opinion).
Acadia is allowed to keep 85% +/- of entry fees. RMNP? Don't know.
No one is going to donate all the land needed to be protected.
This is debatable.
I applaud Roxanne Quimby for her efforts to stimulate a federal discussion. I hope it succeeds, and that she has the persistence of a Percival Baxter, who was equally ridiculed in his early efforts to protect Katahdin.
People thought George Dorr was flake, too. Just remember that Baxter cut a pile of trees before he thought a park might be nice. I am all for land preservation to a degree.
I see what a NP is about, living near one, and really think there has to be a better way.
Some of those quotes got mis-labeled. Not sure why.
Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?
According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged to reporters Monday afternoon that a freeze on new construction across the National Park System would slow efforts to reduce the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which is in the neighborhood of $8 billion.
Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?
According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged to reporters Monday afternoon that a freeze on new construction across the National Park System would slow efforts to reduce the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which is in the neighborhood of $8 billion.
Ya stuttering?
:)
Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.
Unless you really want a new one.
Bunch of stimulus money went to put in fish friendly culverts in a stream that dead ends in a bog. That stream is not flowing now as it is quite dry. As in seasonal.
Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?
Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?
I know what you mean. I've worked for large private corporations also.
TheRaven
07-21-2011, 20:55
Ya stuttering?
:)
Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.
Unless you really want a new one.
Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?
Sounds like Maine schools, Nice historic schools shut down because the boards refuse to put a dime into them. They get "deadly" mold and a new multi-million tax payer funded school gets built. Damn I'm happy I don't pay taxes anymore.
Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?
According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.
So? Set up a private-Public trust like they did with the Presidio of SF. Obviously any "Maine Woods" NP wouldn't have a bunch of army buildings to be leased out, but it also wouldn't have the costs entailed with a urban park. Some people will whine about it not being a "pure" National Park, but it's better than none. Turn it into a National Rec Area.
Area voters overwhelmingly reject proposed North Maine Woods National Park feasibility study.
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/09/news/penobscot/east-millinocket-voters-reject-national-park-feasibility-study/
Area voters overwhelmingly reject proposed North Maine Woods National Park feasibility study.
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/09/news/penobscot/east-millinocket-voters-reject-national-park-feasibility-study/
Wow, I hadn't realized that the U.S. Constitution allows 640 voters in a tiny town in Maine to overrule the federal government. I guess all plans for the park have to be scrapped now.
(Snark aside, who cares? Locals always oppose the designation of new parks and monuments beforehand. After the fact, though, they're happy about the jobs and money that parks and monuments bring.)
peakbagger
11-09-2011, 17:19
I am late to the thread but I have a few comments.
The proposed area is to the east of Baxter State Park and has been cut heavillly, its quite obvious on google earth. There are "beauty strips" along water bodies, but 90% is cut over land. Possibly someone's grandchild reading this thread will see a regenerated Maine woods grown up on the property but for most folks its going to be thick alder thickets for the foreseable future. Although the east branch of the Penobscot runs through the area, the really impressive territory is to the west in Baxter State Park.
Baxter State Park is managed under a set of strict deeds of trust established by Percival Baxter, the person who gave the park to the state. Barring a forced federal government takeover of the park, it will never be part of the proposed national park. Just think someone drives 500 miles to the new national park and are told that they can spend all the time they like in a alder thicket but cant cross into the adjoining state park with all the mountains and scenery.
Maine has a lot of preserved land but it is mostly preserved as working forest with some high value areas set aside. Even the nature conservancy owns a large block along the St John river that is harvested. Unfortunately I have not seen any good online maps that show all the preserved lands as they are owned by multiple owners under many different type of ownership. As the level and types of preservation varies, this is frequently used by park promoters to selectively point out that only a small percentage of Maine is "protected" by a park. When I see the reference to only one national park in the region, its specious as the White and Green Mountain national forests, as well as the AT corridor (officially National park service land) Moosehorn NWR are all managed similiar to a national park but are convieniently left out.
The proposed area east of the park is within the woodbasket of the Millinocket mills which were the economic lifeblood of the region. The prior owner was a hydroelectric firm that had no interest in making investments in woodproducts and finally shut them the mills down after neglecting them for several years. A new firm has bought the facility and is planning to substantially increase prodiction and employment in the area. Unlike seasonal tourist jobs, the mill jobs pay more and have benefits. Living in a tourist area myself, there arent many folks who put their kids through school in the tourist business. Having a large block of preserved land on their doorstep is going to make thing harder for them to pull off the tunraround.
If the intent is to build wilderness rather than build up ones ego, have her donate the land to Baxter State Park and fund an endowment to fund it like Baxter did. The majority of the park is a wilderness game preserve with the exception of the Scientific Management Area so it would be as wild as a national park with less chance of political manipulation from Washington. Alternatively turn it into a National Wildlife refuge.
I am late to the thread but I have a few comments.
The proposed area is to the east of Baxter State Park and has been cut heavillly, its quite obvious on google earth. There are "beauty strips" along water bodies, but 90% is cut over land. Possibly someone's grandchild reading this thread will see a regenerated Maine woods grown up on the property but for most folks its going to be thick alder thickets for the foreseable future. Although the east branch of the Penobscot runs through the area, the really impressive territory is to the west in Baxter State Park.
Baxter State Park is managed under a set of strict deeds of trust established by Percival Baxter, the person who gave the park to the state. Barring a forced federal government takeover of the park, it will never be part of the proposed national park. Just think someone drives 500 miles to the new national park and are told that they can spend all the time they like in a alder thicket but cant cross into the adjoining state park with all the mountains and scenery.
Maine has a lot of preserved land but it is mostly preserved as working forest with some high value areas set aside. Even the nature conservancy owns a large block along the St John river that is harvested. Unfortunately I have not seen any good online maps that show all the preserved lands as they are owned by multiple owners under many different type of ownership. As the level and types of preservation varies, this is frequently used by park promoters to selectively point out that only a small percentage of Maine is "protected" by a park. When I see the reference to only one national park in the region, its specious as the White and Green Mountain national forests, as well as the AT corridor (officially National park service land) Moosehorn NWR are all managed similiar to a national park but are convieniently left out.
The proposed area east of the park is within the woodbasket of the Millinocket mills which were the economic lifeblood of the region. The prior owner was a hydroelectric firm that had no interest in making investments in woodproducts and finally shut them the mills down after neglecting them for several years. A new firm has bought the facility and is planning to substantially increase prodiction and employment in the area. Unlike seasonal tourist jobs, the mill jobs pay more and have benefits. Living in a tourist area myself, there arent many folks who put their kids through school in the tourist business. Having a large block of preserved land on their doorstep is going to make thing harder for them to pull off the tunraround.
If the intent is to build wilderness rather than build up ones ego, have her donate the land to Baxter State Park and fund an endowment to fund it like Baxter did. The majority of the park is a wilderness game preserve with the exception of the Scientific Management Area so it would be as wild as a national park with less chance of political manipulation from Washington. Alternatively turn it into a National Wildlife refuge.
I know of no serious recent proposal to make Baxter a part of any of the proposed National Parks in Maine. But a large Maine Woods National Park, even without Baxter, would be the equal of any existing national park that I've seen -- and I've seen and hiked in most of them, from the Smokies to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite north to Olympia, and Rainier east to Acadia.
takethisbread
11-09-2011, 19:23
As an AT hiker my interest is mostly the impact on the trail. I've long argued that the trail in Maine is in need of help. My only hope that any national park would include Part of the trail, particularly the 100 mile section, bc the trail in Maine cannot be sufficiently maintained by unpaid volunteers, and trails in national parks generally feature better maintenance. I know none of this is likely to happen but it's a wish to improve the footing issues, the erosion issues and quality of the shelters in many areas of Maine AT. My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few.
I know of no serious recent proposal to make Baxter a part of any of the proposed National Parks in Maine.
Don't be silly. Next you will be saying "I don't recall." I know of no recent drug use by any celebrities.
But a large Maine Woods National Park, even without Baxter, would be the equal of any existing national park that I've seen -- and I've seen and hiked in most of them, from the Smokies to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite north to Olympia, and Rainier east to Acadia.
You really are not making sense. The woods of inland Maine are interesting, and there are all sorts of wondrous places. Comparing them to some of the NPs in existence, or even to some of the Public Reserve Land in Maine, is addled.
Wow, I hadn't realized that the U.S. Constitution allows 640 voters in a tiny town in Maine to overrule the federal government. I guess all plans for the park have to be scrapped now.
welcome to maine, "the way life should be !" :D
Mountain Mike
11-13-2011, 19:59
I would much prefer a Nat Forest to a park. Forests allow for multie use & far less camping rules than Nat Park.
peakbagger
11-14-2011, 08:38
With regards to the Takethisbreads comments about the 100 mile wilderness. The vast majority of the area is already protected from development "forever" by various entities, adding a national park designation if anything is going to increase usage not decrease usage.
I am not a Maine Resident but live in Neighboring New Hampshire. I LOVE the state of Maine. I think that a Maine Woods National Park would be a fantastic idea. As for the opposition, remember even Baxter State Park was opposed tooth an nail by the locals to the point that Governor Baxter had to buy up land secretly and then give it to the state (even perhaps less publicly that Roxanne Quimby is buying up land now). Fast forward to today.. Baxter State Park is incredibly popular and is probably responsible for keeping the nearby town of Millinocket from going bankrupt altogether.
OH I wish I had multiple millions even billions. If it were me, I'd buy up a swath from the North East Kingdom of VT through Coos Country and up the Maine Border to Fort Kent. I know that's not possible but a guy can dream can't he?
As an AT hiker my interest is mostly the impact on the trail. I've long argued that the trail in Maine is in need of help. My only hope that any national park would include Part of the trail, particularly the 100 mile section, bc the trail in Maine cannot be sufficiently maintained by unpaid volunteers, and trails in national parks generally feature better maintenance. I know none of this is likely to happen but it's a wish to improve the footing issues, the erosion issues and quality of the shelters in many areas of Maine AT. My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few.
Each 2-4 miles section of the Appalachian Trail in Maine is assigned to a single volunteer. That person is responsible for making sure that the brush is kept cut back, waterbars are kept cleaned of debris, that shelters are kept cleaned, and with being the eyes on the ground to alert MATC of the need for more major trail maintainance
Major construction projects involving erosion and unsafe trail conditions are mostly done by paid crews or at least crews lead by trained and paid leaders. The money comes from donations and from grants from the National Park Service, which owns most of the trail corridor. A lot of the Maine trail is rougher than in other parts of the 2,000 miles, because most of it is relatively new. When Congress decreed in the late 1960's that a permanent route for the trail be established quickly, and mostly on the ridgetops of the Appalachian Mountains, MATC faced a massive trail design effort. The trail had been pushed through Maine in the 1930s on logging roads, bypassing most peaks. Volunteers roughed out trails that bypassed two-thirds of the existing route by the middle 1980s. Ever since paid crews have been busy "hardening" this new trail, installing stone steps on eroding steep grades, creating water barriers to prevent future erosion, and doing other needed work.
Depending on the mood of Congress and the people of Maine, a new Maine Woods National Park may or may not include the existing trail corridor. It will not include Katahdin. Under the terms of his gift, Gov. Baxter ordained that Katahdin will always remain "the mountain of the people of Maine." In addition to giving 200,000 acres of land, Baxter also left a trust fund, which with the addition of park fees pay the entire cost of maintaining the park.
But regardless, Congress has purchased the trail corridor, and assigned its care to the National Park Service, which forevermore is responsible for its maintenance, regardless of whether a new park is created.
hikerboy57
11-14-2011, 16:34
Quote " My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few. "
peserving our wild spaces serves the entire population, whether they visit a specific park or not. If people felt this way years ago, the national park system would never have been created.what percentage of the population has ever visited yellowstone?
preservation and recreation can coexist, but dont necessarrily have to.
bamboo bob
11-14-2011, 16:52
I don't understand why the idea of a new park in Maine has to exclude hunting and make no provision for ATV etc. I don't use an ATV and I don't hunt but i think the woods has room for many and can use the support of many. The logging companies let people hike and fish and hunt. Every stick of it does not have to be a playground for ATV's but they ought to be included. Plus Maine needs tourists and backpackers are cheap and there are not many of them. Keith Shaw made more of a living from snow mobiles (i don't use) than he ever saw from back packers.
takethisbread
11-14-2011, 18:43
Quote " My last concern is for the taxpayer. I am never in favor of subsidizing land through tax exemption or outright purchase unless the public is going to get a great deal of use out of it and it can serve a clear national interest. A national park in Maine that does not include the Appalachian Trail or Mount Katahdin seems pointless, a waste of tax dollars, or at least not deserving of the increased tax burden on the rest of us, and serving too few. "
peserving our wild spaces serves the entire population, whether they visit a specific park or not. If people felt this way years ago, the national park system would never have been created.what percentage of the population has ever visited yellowstone?
preservation and recreation can coexist, but dont necessarrily have to.
Yellowstone whether it you visit it or not is clearly in the best interests of the people. Maine woods, is indistinguishable, to most people from many woods in the Northern Appalachians. Certainly not enough to cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. not in this economy, not for this location.
BTW Yellowstone gets almost a MILLION vistiors a month in the summer.
So yes a ton of people get use out of it. When 10% of your nations population visit a place that is very much out of the way, its a major need.
by contrast Baxter state Park, which will always be the main attraction in that portionof the State gets about 60,000 vistitors a YEAR.
hikerboy57
11-14-2011, 18:54
maybe millions visit yellowstone now, but before it became a national park?My point is that national parks dont necessarily need to become recreation areas, and I dont think Id want a million people visiting the maine woods, anyway. Any preservation of our wild places is a good investment IMHO.
[QUOTE=takethisbread;1218563]Yellowstone whether it you visit it or not is clearly in the best interests of the people. Maine woods, is indistinguishable, to most people from many woods in the Northern Appalachians. Certainly not enough to cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. not in this economy, not for this location.
Agree.
BTW Yellowstone gets almost a MILLION vistiors a month in the summer.
no. But it does get a pile.
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm
This is a fun site. Lots of visitation reports, by type. Good for planning.
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/index.cfm
Or this.:)
Click on state and about three clicks in you can get a scrollable list of visitation reports.
Yellowstone whether it you visit it or not is clearly in the best interests of the people. Maine woods, is indistinguishable, to most people from many woods in the Northern Appalachians. Certainly not enough to cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. not in this economy, not for this location.
Maine wildlands don't pay anything like tens of millions of dollars in taxes. The last time a checked all 10 million acres of unorganized township lands in the state paid around a million dollars total in taxes. Taxes are based mostly on school costs. The entire 10 million acres has only 10,000 permanent residents and no schools.
The Maine woods, however form the largest area in the east without public roads. These northern Appalachians also have the only large unique environment in the nation that is not represented in the National Park system.
takethisbread
11-15-2011, 07:21
Maine wildlands don't pay anything like tens of millions of dollars in taxes. The last time a checked all 10 million acres of unorganized township lands in the state paid around a million dollars total in taxes. Taxes are based mostly on school costs. The entire 10 million acres has only 10,000 permanent residents and no schools.The Maine woods, however form the largest area in the east without public roads. These northern Appalachians also have the only large unique environment in the nation that is not represented in the National Park system.A million dollars is a lot of money, especially when it's lost income into the future. We then have to add in the millions of dollars that will be spent running a park. And as unique you think these woods are, the average citizen might not see it as much different. The demand is not there. There are already way too many National Parks. The drain at this juncture is too much. Every dollar is needed in consumers pockets.
The Maine woods, however form the largest area in the east without public roads. These northern Appalachians also have the only large unique environment in the nation that is not represented in the National Park system.
Do you consider the Golden Road not to be public? Or the road to Telos?
Open to the public at the very least.
You make it sound like some interior pristine place.
Roads up there going every which way.
WingedMonkey
11-15-2011, 10:30
There are already way too many National Parks. The drain at this juncture is too much. Every dollar is needed in consumers pockets.
Let me know where all this private land is that we can hike on instead of National Parks and other public land. I'd love to use the trails there.
Do you consider the Golden Road not to be public? Or the road to Telos? Open to the public at the very least. You make it sound like some interior pristine place. Roads up there going every which way.
And all built for just one purpose to transport logs. As the mills close, all these now "public" roads will deteriorate until they are no longer passable. Rains will erode them. Log bridges will rot away. Unless, of course some developer keeps them up to allow wealthy people to buy thousand acre vacation retreats and post no trespassing signs.
We face a choice. A public park or development. Mudhead. You live in the shadow of Acadia National Park. Ask yourself. Would you live there had Rockerfeller and his friends subdivided the mountains into house lots, instead of donating them for a public park? Several million people a year enjoy Acadia today. The nearby towns are among the most prosperous in the state as a result.
hikerboy57
11-15-2011, 14:28
"public use" and national parks dont have to go together.there are more than a few national parks that get very few vistors annually, such as Isle Royale. Thsi doesnt mean that we shouldnt preserve thee places. visitation is tightly controlled in the more popular parks, such as the smokies and yellowstone, without this protection, the parks would be overrun with visitors, and the beauty so many travel so far to see, would be destroyed.Theres nothing wrong with preserving open space, IMHO, everyone benefits. you can check out the complete visitation stats at http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm?selectedReport=SystemYTDByPark.cfm.
And all built for just one purpose to transport logs. As the mills close, all these now "public" roads will deteriorate until they are no longer passable. Rains will erode them. Log bridges will rot away. Unless, of course some developer keeps them up to allow wealthy people to buy thousand acre vacation retreats and post no trespassing signs.
Do you really think a park could pay for this upkeep?
We face a choice. A public park or development. Mudhead. You live in the shadow of Acadia National Park. Ask yourself. Would you live there had Rockerfeller and his friends subdivided the mountains into house lots, instead of donating them for a public park? Several million people a year enjoy Acadia today. The nearby towns are among the most prosperous in the state as a result.
Acadia pre dates Rockefeller. I didn't think he had any friends. :)
This area would be covered with homes, much like San Diego. There is much more of a draw.
Might not be a terrible thing, or it might. Might be some year round work here. I have seen too much heavy handed federal nonsense to be in favor of a national park. Public reserve land? Do anything for you?
I think Portland is more prosperous. Compare the wages.
You feel free to think it is a good idea. I think we should concentrate on that peninsula you live on...
....You feel free to think it (a Maine Woods National Park) is a good idea. I think we should concentrate on that peninsula you live on...
I've been doing both for a half century and more. When I first returned to Maine in 1958 I tried to reopen the quiet effort -- first broached during Edmund's Muskie's years as governor-- to create a National Park in my town. When that failed I created a Phippsburg Land Trust and served as a founding director of a family created land trust that currently attracts 15,000 visitors a year to 600 acres of wild beach, woodland and a small mountain.
Our small peninsula now has 5,000 acres of protected lands, all open for the public to walk on and enjoy.
I also was among the first people to call public attention to the 400,000 acres of public preserved lands that Maine saved when it sold it's multimillion acre public domain and then forgot what it had done. I was simply the messager for the public preserve lands that now total more than 600,000 acres -- three times the size of Baxter Park. But some people think those messages were critical in the eventual recovery and expansion of the preserves.
Whatever. I then and now spend much of my time supporting efforts to increase places where ordinary people can enjoy the natural world.
You feel free to quote me verbatim or not at all.
Thank you.
If you edit your post, I may read the rest of it.
Until then move back to Boston.
You feel free to quote me verbatim or not at all.
Thank you.
If you edit your post, I may read the rest of it.
Until then move back to Boston.
I accurately quoted (I hope) the portion of your post that I disagreed with. I've never lived in Boston and only on one or two occasions have I spent even an overnight there. I returned from Chicago and other places in Illinois in 1958 after spending 10 years of working, being drafted, and belatedly earning a BS in jounalism from U of I.
I spent 35 years working for Maine newspapers and the last 20 years of "retirement" promoting places where the public can enjoy natural places away from trespassing signs, which incidently was also much of what I wrote about while working for newspapers.
[QUOTE=weary;1218956]I accurately quoted (I hope)
Guess you have a problem reading.
Typical. Pretty much a standard affliction with garden-gaters.
I suppose Chicago would be good enough.
The Maine woods, however form the largest area in the east without public roads. These northern Appalachians also have the only large unique environment in the nation that is not represented in the National Park system.
And that is a good thing IMO, thanks for bringing that to our attention. National Park= fees, regulations, automobile pollution, paved roads for the city pukes etc. etc.
Wise Old Owl
11-17-2011, 19:38
Well, its a matter of perspective. While she may have bought the land to prevent development, that does not neccessarily make it right for everyone. The taxpayers ultimately should make this decision, and if it is the will of the people to develop that area to create revenues, jobs and provide a better life and lesser tax burden on the residents, that is what i believe should be done. Baxter State Park is a treasure. And if it is not included I see no reason why the citizens of the United States should subsidize non -essential land with out clear need.
While i am not absolutely familiar with the entire area in question, i feel safe in assuming there is no Mt Whitney or Crater Lake or Grand Canyon in its midst, that is of great national importance. I know this won't be a popular viewpoint around here, but i just assume if Ms Quimby wants to protect this property she can still own it.
Beside the fact that she apparently wants to stick the burden of ownership and upkeep on the taxpayers i applaud her apparently philanthropic aim. My concern, as usual, is with the taxpayers and ensuring it is Their Will.
oh wow- so what... what you fail to understand that if she decides to lock the land for non development and it does become a state or national park that brings in far more dollars than taxes to the ifrastructure. just like basketball with all their million dollar players and administrators are arguing how much to be paid, while small business and employees are suffering while there are no games in the midwest.... (source 60 minutes and Sunday Morning) Idiots like Rendel & Martin O' Malley reduced jobs by cutting thousands of dollars of pay to shut down state parks in the wake of the economy... the weird part is state parks is the only state positive inflow of money from folks visiting the state. The income outweighs the expense and both cut days and hours. Rendel shut down thirty state parks... lack of understanding.
You are a severely damaged human being. ( a quote from two and a half men) Come back when you learn the truth, Philanthropy is awesome. Don't question a gift.
Wise Old Owl
11-17-2011, 21:06
Rendel Closes parks
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/news/newsreleases/2009/0509-budget.htm
http://www.paparksandforests.org/downloads/Fact%20Sheets/Economic_Benefits.pdf
More than twenty years of studies in Pennsylvania and throughout the U.S. unequivocally show that parks,
greenways, public forests and other protected natural lands can boost property values, improve local economies, attract and support businesses, save energy and
water-treatment costs, and safeguard the natural systems on which our economic
well-being depends.
Parks and Forests Boost Land Values
Study after study shows that people value living next to parks and protected
forestlands. In suburban areas where
open space is limited, land values adjacent to permanently protected lands are higher, and in some cases up to 35% more. Higher land values, in turn, translate into higher property taxes for
the municipality. 1 State Parks and Forests are an Economic
Engine for Local and State Economy A recent study of the economic impact of PA’s State Parks was conducted by the Penn State University Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management. Their study concluded that in 2008:
• PA State Parks hosted 33.6 million visitors who
directly spent $738 million on their trips — an average
of $22 per person per visit.
• This spending supported 10,551 jobs contributing
$291.4 million in labor income, resulting in $464.7
million in value-added effects.
• For every tax-payer dollar invested in State Parks,
$7.62 of income (value added) is returned to
Pennsylvania. 2
Similarly, a study of New Jersey state parks and forests
estimated that visitors spent an average of $21 per visit, 3
and visitors to North Carolina state parks spend an
average of $24 per day. 4
In 1995, U.S. Forest Service economists found that
of the $125 billion generated annually from forest
service lands, 75 percent was from recreation. 5
The 2006 national survey on recreation by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that residents and
visitors to Pennsylvania spent more than $5.4 million
per year on hunting, fishing and wildlife watching
alone — much of which takes place on state forest or
state park lands. 6
State Parks and Forests Boost Local
Economies by Attracting Businesses
and Residents
People desire to live in communities with outdoor
recreation amenities. Workers are making job choices
based on quality of life factors, and studies show
that people rank parks, recreation, and open space
amenities as the most important quality-of-life factors.
Even retirees are showing that available recreation
opportunities are a primary factor in their choice of
retirement location. 7
Economic Value of Pennsylvania State Parks and Forests
For every tax-payer dollar
invested in State Parks,
$7.62 of income (value added)
is returned to Pennsylvania.
Visitors to most state parks and forests provide significant support
for small businesses such as this bait, tackle and general camping
supply store next to Gifford Pinchot State Park in York County.
Hundreds of local grocery stores, boat stores, motels, gas stations
and ice cream parlors depend upon state park visitors
spending that supports more than 10,000 jobs and adds
hundreds of millions of dollars to Pennsylvania’s economy.
Pennsylvania’s state forests generate millions of dollars in
revenue to local economies from in and out-of-state visitors.
With more than 3,000 miles of trails, outdoor enthusiasts find
endless opportunities for hiking, cross-country skiing,
mountain biking, horseback riding, snowmobiling and ATV
riding. Many of the best hunting grounds, finest fishing streams
and grandest views in the state are found throughout the state
forests.
FWIW. Through the efforts of a variety of conservation groups and individuals, my small town (total acreage 18,000) now has 5,000 acres of protected lands where walking, hunting and other low impact recreation activities are welcomed. Some grumble that people are gobbling up our tax base and land that others need for homes. But I notice that real estate ads, now trumpet "near trails" and "near protected lands."
Wise Old Owl
11-18-2011, 16:46
I would love to have a home near Arcadia - the wife won't tolerate the cold weather - guess I need a new partner.......
Mr. Clean
11-19-2011, 07:29
I'm still unsure what people would flock to a Maine northwoods park to see. Theres a lot of spruce trees, so thick you can't quite get through them. Oh, theres some more spruce trees. Some good canoeing, I'd suppose. Am I missing something else?
I'd rather see a Natl forest. Folk could still come here to hike, the forest could be managed for timber, and the land could be preserved.
Kudos, Weary, on your efforts over the decades.
hikerboy57
11-19-2011, 08:25
I'm still unsure what people would flock to a Maine northwoods park to see. Theres a lot of spruce trees, so thick you can't quite get through them. Oh, theres some more spruce trees.
Thats exactly what I go to Maine to see.
I just hope that the maine people will listen to what the out-o-staters want because they know whats best for the maine people. :rolleyes:
full conditions
11-19-2011, 13:52
I just hope that the maine people will listen to what the out-o-staters want because they know whats best for the maine people. :rolleyes:
I know right? Just like when those pesky "outsiders" insisted that the South obey the law and desegregate its schools back in the '60's. Let Mississippi decide whats best for Mississippians. Hmmmm.... I wonder what the "national" part of National Park means?
BlackCloud
11-21-2011, 12:25
Park planners have twice rejected the land in ME for Nat'l Park status as being below the threshold of national significance. The NPS is overburdened as it is. They keep making parks (called Park Barrel), and no $$ is added to the budget, making it ever harder to properly manage what they have.
Making everyhting into a national park so no more trees get cut down is not what the NPS is about.....
Park planners have twice rejected the land in ME for Nat'l Park status as being below the threshold of national significance. The NPS is overburdened as it is. They keep making parks (called Park Barrel), and no $$ is added to the budget, making it ever harder to properly manage what they have.
Making everyhting into a national park so no more trees get cut down is not what the NPS is about.....
Nor were the proposals for a Maine National Park about keeping trees from being cut down. Nor will I believe that park planners have twice rejected land in Maine for National Park status without some serious documentation.
Must be a pretty big park everyone is talking about.
I would have thought that non-park land would still eclipse that which would be protected for future generations, and be capable of supporting whats left of the mill-based economy-- or the whims of kingdom buyers as the case may be.
hikerboy57
11-21-2011, 19:50
Nor were the proposals for a Maine National Park about keeping trees from being cut down. Nor will I believe that park planners have twice rejected land in Maine for National Park status without some serious documentation.
Weary,
Woukl it make more sense to make it a state park , the way baxter is, with the same mandates?
Mike2012
11-21-2011, 21:13
A BIG new national park up there would be a great idea IMO. It would bring tourists dropping money inland and away from the already lucrative coast. Sure it's been cut over but national parks also have huge fires and they are still worth having set aside for future generations. I loved living near Acadia National Park off and on for a couple decades I can appreciate some of the arguments against it but over all the balance in my mind tips towards having the area in the national park system with Baxter State Park staying as is. A combination of a good sized national park with national forest, wilderness, and state park is just fine in my mind as well. Maybe I'll settle up there after my thru hike. City life ain't for me.
Must be a pretty big park everyone is talking about.
I would have thought that non-park land would still eclipse that which would be protected for future generations, and be capable of supporting what's left of the mill-based economy-- or the whims of kingdom buyers as the case may be.
Restore the North Woods organization has been promoting a 3.2 million acre national park for a couple of decades now. Roxanne is offering to donate 70,000 acres for a park. Supporters, I suspect, see her donation as a first step towards a larger park. How large is anyone's guess at the moment, but it would leave more than enough land in private ownership for the remnants of the pulp & Paper and logging industries. The black hole shown in nighttime satellite photos that reveals areas of no significant development is around 15 million acres.
The State of Maine is a relative newcomer to land protection. Until half way through the 20th century the state had sold or tried to sell all the multi-million acre public domain it has inherited from Massachusetts, but hadn't spent a penny to acquire land for state parks. All the Maine state parks had been donated. When the legislature caught the public land fever about 1970 and appropriated 5 million dollars for land purchases, the state park agencies refused to spend it for years.
A citizen initiated referendum that created the Bigelow Preserve, and the surprise court decision that gave back to the state 400,000 acres of public land it had thought it had sold changed the political mood slightly. There followed a couple of large "land for Maine's future" bond issues, but that program appears to have ended. The last funds have been expended, and no significant new bond issues have been seriously considered lately.
A large park in the wildlands of Maine would be tremendously valuable. But it won't be created by the state of Maine, I'm afraid. That leaves the federal government -- or perhaps one of the newly hatched billionaires if one can be found who's interested in a real legacy.
BlackCloud
11-22-2011, 18:05
Let me know where all this private land is that we can hike on instead of National Parks and other public land. I'd love to use the trails there.
Can't you hike the privately owned woods of N. Maine if you pay the toll road entrance fees?
Is EVERY swath of trees needed to hike in?
BlackCloud
11-22-2011, 18:13
Nor were the proposals for a Maine National Park about keeping trees from being cut down. Nor will I believe that park planners have twice rejected land in Maine for National Park status without some serious documentation.
It was rejected by Mather & Albright when the NPS was established & again in the 30's when a large eastern park was desired. The latter move led to both the Smokies & Shenandoah, with the Blue Ridge Parkway linking the two. The Everglades were also thrown in for good measure, once they realized how UNIQUE that area is.
Furthermore, you can't cut trees down (or fish or hunt) in a national park unless that park's authorizing legislation specifically allows. This is what differentiates the NPS from the USFS.
As for documentation, start reading books about the history of the NPS. It is all well documented.
hikerboy57
11-22-2011, 18:18
orlando,Fla. land of overdevelopment.
yes, its necessary to protect as many open spaces as possible, not just for hiking and recreation, but to stem the tide of overdevelopment, particularly of overpriced, cheaply built housing..
BlackCloud
11-23-2011, 12:56
orlando,Fla. land of overdevelopment.
yes, its necessary to protect as many open spaces as possible, not just for hiking and recreation, but to stem the tide of overdevelopment, particularly of overpriced, cheaply built housing..
An abuse of the ideals and principles of the National Park Service to be sure.
An abuse of the ideals and principles of the National Park Service to be sure.
The National Park Service is "an agency devoted to preserving, unimpaired, America’s natural and cultural treasures." Many things easily fit under that umbrella -- especially a a large Maine Woods National Park.
The core issue is that Maine residents want to maintain unfettered access to private land (the paper company's) for hunting and snow machines, correct?
Fast forward 100 years. Will those paper companies (some of the biggest ones are foreign) still be providing that benefit for the people of Maine?
My crystal ball says no.
Where will that leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren if visionaries like Ms. Quimby are pushed aside by those thinking only of where to place a tree stand this year and next.
bamboo bob
11-24-2011, 10:54
Some places on the Florida trail have side by side trail for hiker, horses, ATV. Many backpackers and people on this list are also hunters and ATVers. There is really room for all of us. I think mountain bikes do as much damage, and horse as well. I don't ATV because I don't much like machinery but they can have their own routes in the forest. (maybe out of ear shot) The logging companies let everyone use the land. This is an issue for Mainers to decide.
The core issue is that Maine residents want to maintain unfettered access to private land (the paper company's) for hunting and snow machines, correct?
Federal involvement is the core issue for me. Ask the residents of Vermont how they feel about federal involvement.
Fast forward 100 years. Will those paper companies (some of the biggest ones are foreign) still be providing that benefit for the people of Maine?
My crystal ball says no.
That benefit is provided to all, not just residents of Maine.
Does your crystal ball say what the tax rate would be on that land?
Where will that leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren if visionaries like Ms. Quimby are pushed aside by those thinking only of where to place a tree stand this year and next.
Have not been in a tree stand. Did you like it?
Your descendants will have enough issues paying for existing protected land. Just how much of this state do you feel should be set aside for the enjoyment of people such as yourself? We have quite a bunch of it.
Wise Old Owl
11-24-2011, 23:36
Not trying to be disrespectful to the proponents of the new national park but the reality is the Nat. Park Service is already in deep financial trouble. Could they guarantee that this new park if built would be maintained and staffed properly ?
According to a Feb. 2011 report from the National Park Service, probably not. They already have a $ 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog on its existing parks.
OK what evidence do you have? All branches are hurting.... there is discretionary & mandatory spending - I do not see something here that I can read that would point me in the right direction....
Here - halfway down the page - is a start where I started - to begin to look for what you are talking about.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Park_Service
Wise Old Owl
11-24-2011, 23:41
Name me one that is and I'll take your question seriously. A beat up house in the boondocks that is a national park. Get back to me on that.
Ditto - thousands acres here next to my house started that way to form a successful popular park and town from 300 years ago - Ridley Creek State Park.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/findapark/ridleycreek/index.htm
Wise Old Owl
11-25-2011, 00:03
National forest then....anything to get the land out of the logging companies hands...tired of seeing the bumper sticker "if you don't like logging, try using plastic toilet paper"
Some of you can tell I am going backwards into this thread to get to some unknown karma. When I see someone who makes a bad "uninformed" post - its not to correct, not to teach - but to inform....
The best toilet paper can be farmed - from cotton and a mixture of hemp and water soluble fibers.
Please Raven - keep going... it's nothing personal.
Wise Old Owl
11-25-2011, 00:09
Ya stuttering?
:)
Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.
Unless you really want a new one.
Bunch of stimulus money went to put in fish friendly culverts in a stream that dead ends in a bog. That stream is not flowing now as it is quite dry. As in seasonal.
Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?
I like this post - It really does not matter about sensibilities - Both the govt and corps. have done the wrong things enough for a long time.
OK what evidence do you have? All branches are hurting.... there is discretionary & mandatory spending - I do not see something here that I can read that would point me in the right direction....
Here - halfway down the page - is a start where I started - to begin to look for what you are talking about.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Park_Service
http://www.ournationalparks.us/index.php/site/story_issues/parks_need_more_funding_to_reach_maintenance_goal/
Not much has changed since that article was written four years ago, here is an updated version
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/01/reducing-federal-deficit-essential-are-national-parks-logical-place-cut-spending5307
Wise Old Owl
11-26-2011, 16:22
Thanks - good articles!
Old Hillwalker
11-26-2011, 18:00
Just curious. What National Parks is it legal to hunt in?
The core issue is that Maine residents want to maintain unfettered access to private land (the paper company's) for hunting and snow machines, correct?
Fast forward 100 years. Will those paper companies (some of the biggest ones are foreign) still be providing that benefit for the people of Maine?
My crystal ball says no.
Where will that leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren if visionaries like Ms. Quimby are pushed aside by those thinking only of where to place a tree stand this year and next.
You don't need a crystal ball. All the traditional paper companies sold most of their land holdings years ago. Irving, a recent newcomer to the industry, still has land holdings. But almost no other paper company owns significant land any more. They all rely on the speculators they sold to to keep a supply of wood available long enough for them to use up whatever value remains in the mills they own to be used up.
Some places on the Florida trail have side by side trail for hiker, horses, ATV. Many backpackers and people on this list are also hunters and ATVers. There is really room for all of us. I think mountain bikes do as much damage, and horse as well. I don't ATV because I don't much like machinery but they can have their own routes in the forest. (maybe out of ear shot) The logging companies let everyone use the land. This is an issue for Mainers to decide.
Just a correction. The logging companies didn't "let everyone use the land." Many banned ATV from their lands. But enforcement has been lax. ATV's weren't allowed through most of the company gates. But most gate attendants leave as soon as most tourists leave in the fall, allowing ATV's a free range.
Feral Bill
11-26-2011, 18:36
Just curious. What National Parks is it legal to hunt in? In Alaska some park lands are open to traditional hunting uses.
peakbagger
11-29-2011, 09:23
Maine must be doing something right on conserving land without resorting to a national park
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/27/news/state/report-maine-among-big-land-conserving-states/
peakbagger
11-29-2011, 10:04
Listed below are several links to large blocks of conservation land already protected from development in Maine that are rarely mentioned when a National park is discussed for the state. The proponents of a new National Park convieniently forget to mention these lands and many others that are already protected from development in the state when they trumpet the very low percentage of federal land in Maine. Unlike a national park, many of the owners of these protected lands still cut timber on these lands albeit sustainably which supplies year round jobs for loggers and surrounding industries. The average citizen unfortunately equates federal ownership with protection which ignores the fact that private and non profit entities have already figured out a way of protecting land without the federal government taking ownership.
Obviously its easier to pull the strings from afar when the federal government controls land rather than private entities and I guess that is one of the ultimate goals of those who want a National Park in Maine. As evidenced by the precipitous drop in forestry activity in the White and Green Mountain National forests due to policies implemented for western US issues and the associated loss of numerous small and large wood product operations in the region, ultimately the a goal is to drive the "locals" out of the area by starving them out by taking away any likelyhood of long term employment and replacing it with a seasonal tourist economy.
Here is another older article discussing a 600,000 acre block stretching from Moosehead Lake to Katahdin. Not a bit of it is National Forest yet the land is protected from development
http://bangordailynews.com/2009/11/09/politics/land-purchase-connects-conservation-tracts/?ref=relatedBox
In addition another 327,000 acres in Downeast maine
http://www.conservationfund.org/what_we_do/places_we_protect/downeast_maine
And another 750,000 acres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Islands_Land_Company
And another 180,000 acres
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/maine/explore/st-john-river-forest-history.xml
I could not find a recent link, but a lot of the AT in western Maine runs through a 629,000 acre block formerly owned by Mead Westvaco. It was sold to an anonymous group which reportedly was traced to the Yale Retirement Fund. It is managed sustainably.
For more of western Maine and a PDF of conserved land in the Mahoosucs here is another link
http://www.mahoosucinfo.org/
And finally a PDF of the original proposed Maine Woods Nation Park from several years ago. The Quimby land is shown to the east of the the Baxter State Park boundary and west of the east branch of the penobscot river. Note this is 2006 and there have been subsequent conservation of lands in the area, but note that at least a third of the much larger park is protected from development. It is also interesting to note that a lot of the smaller townws in the area were not shown.
This is very large PDF and will take awhile to load
http://www.restore.org/Maine/2006ConservationLands.pdf
Listed below are several links to large blocks of conservation land already protected from development in Maine that are rarely mentioned when a National park is discussed for the state. The proponents of a new National Park convieniently forget to mention these lands and many others that are already protected from development in the state when they trumpet the very low percentage of federal land in Maine. Unlike a national park, many of the owners of these protected lands still cut timber on these lands albeit sustainably which supplies year round jobs for loggers and surrounding industries. The average citizen unfortunately equates federal ownership with protection which ignores the fact that private and non profit entities have already figured out a way of protecting land without the federal government taking ownership.
Obviously its easier to pull the strings from afar when the federal government controls land rather than private entities and I guess that is one of the ultimate goals of those who want a National Park in Maine. As evidenced by the precipitous drop in forestry activity in the White and Green Mountain National forests due to policies implemented for western US issues and the associated loss of numerous small and large wood product operations in the region, ultimately the a goal is to drive the "locals" out of the area by starving them out by taking away any likelyhood of long term employment and replacing it with a seasonal tourist economy.
Here is another older article discussing a 600,000 acre block stretching from Moosehead Lake to Katahdin. Not a bit of it is National Forest yet the land is protected from development
http://bangordailynews.com/2009/11/09/politics/land-purchase-connects-conservation-tracts/?ref=relatedBox
In addition another 327,000 acres in Downeast maine
http://www.conservationfund.org/what_we_do/places_we_protect/downeast_maine
And another 750,000 acres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Islands_Land_Company
And another 180,000 acres
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/maine/explore/st-john-river-forest-history.xml
I could not find a recent link, but a lot of the AT in western Maine runs through a 629,000 acre block formerly owned by Mead Westvaco. It was sold to an anonymous group which reportedly was traced to the Yale Retirement Fund. It is managed sustainably.
For more of western Maine and a PDF of conserved land in the Mahoosucs here is another link
http://www.mahoosucinfo.org/
And finally a PDF of the original proposed Maine Woods Nation Park from several years ago. The Quimby land is shown to the east of the the Baxter State Park boundary and west of the east branch of the penobscot river. Note this is 2006 and there have been subsequent conservation of lands in the area, but note that at least a third of the much larger park is protected from development. It is also interesting to note that a lot of the smaller townws in the area were not shown.
This is very large PDF and will take awhile to load
http://www.restore.org/Maine/2006ConservationLands.pdf
Thanks for the details, though I summarized most of these conserved lands recently in a post showing how easily a large national park in Maine could be assembled.
FWIW. It's my understanding that much of the Yale lands are available for sale to the highest bidder. University owned lands are generally not conserved lands, but investment lands. Yale has billions in assets because it invests for maximum longterm returns.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/13/news/penobscot/87-percent-of-polled-patten-residents-oppose-quimbys-plan-park-opponent-claims/?ref=regionstate3
:09 #121 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?71080-Another-Maine-National-Park&p=1221572&viewfull=1#post1221572) Wise Old Owl (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php?11552-Wise-Old-Owl)
Ya stuttering?
:)
Even when they have the dough, they let things go to hell. Like not replacing shingles. No excuse for letting a perfectly good building go like that.
Unless you really want a new one.
Bunch of stimulus money went to put in fish friendly culverts in a stream that dead ends in a bog. That stream is not flowing now as it is quite dry. As in seasonal.
Common sense in a large bureaucratic entity?
I like this post - It really does not matter about sensibilities - Both the govt and corps. have done the wrong things enough for a long time.
“I love that whole princess mentality, going on a hike and then eating a big chili-cheeseburger.”-Jennifer Love Hewitt .WOO (http://www.owlshill.org.moses.com/nature/audio/barred/barred.wav)
Words like "sustainability", "eco-friendly", "green", etc. are words which bewitch and beguile many a well-meaning citizen. Used in politics, these words can be a very powerful tool of leverage, blinding the minds of lovers of nature to the fact that not all supposed "improvements" are improvements at all, merely a way of appropriating funds for a good show, whereby many honest but naive taxpayers are coaxed to throw dollars at a mirage.
Thanks for the heads-up eye opener on the fish culvert.
I call it political correctness. It's the religion "du jour". :-?
National Park feasibility study group disbanding. Cite enormous strain on personal lives, growing opposition.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/13/news/penobscot/medway-group-formed-to-support-quimby-park-feasibility-study-disbands/
TJ aka Teej
02-14-2012, 15:47
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/13/news/penobscot/medway-group-formed-to-support-quimby-park-feasibility-study-disbands/
"Moving forward,” she added, “we will continue to make it a priority to listen to and work in good faith with citizens, businesses and organizations in the Katahdin Region and beyond who believe a potential Maine Woods National Park will bring much needed jobs to the region and diversify the economy without damaging either traditional use or traditional manufacturing industry.”
Informally called “the Medway group” because most of its members are from that town, the committee led an effort that culminated at Medway Middle School last summer, when local residents voted 46-6 to support a study.
More than a dozen civic and business organizations have supported having a feasibility study done by the National Park Service, including the Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce.
Also, a poll of 600 people selected randomly across the state by an independent marketing firm out of Portland in October found that six out of 10 residents supported a feasibility study.
Well, that's good news. thanks for the link.
bamboo bob
02-14-2012, 16:01
I hope they leave up to the people of Maine. States count for something.
BlackCloud
02-14-2012, 19:56
Amazing. They'd create a national park so as to create jobs. Yea, that's what the NPS is all about.
Well, that's good news. thanks for the link.
You are welcome . But what i gathered from the article beyond your cherry picking of the article is that the Medway study group disbanded because they didn't like the direction
of her park effort, and her failure to deliver on promises to the study group. So, despite her comments praising the groups effort on her behalf , they are fed up with her BS IMO.
That was some fine partial quoting, was it not?:)
I figured they were tired of waiting for the promised feasibility study. If the study showed what she wanted, it would have appeared before it was promised.
Takes time to modify an independent study to your liking.
Much resistance up here also to expanding Fundy National Park. I don't understand it. Some of it might be concerns over wood supply, but I think alot of it is coming from ATVers and such that like to do whatever they want in the woods like they owned it, just because they've been getting away with it. It's her land. She payed for it. She should be able to donate it to a National Trust or whatever but people would still abuse it. I think the forestry industry makes use of ATVers as leverage to maintain their wood supply. There is a need for wood supply for the forest industry, for sure, but there ought to be a better way to manage forests that using the ATV mob.
takethisbread
02-15-2012, 10:40
do what you want just dont take one dime out my pocket. National Parks generally dont add jobs (except ones the taxpayers foot the bill for) . This country needs real growth, not more handouts to spoiled government hacks.
Cookerhiker
02-15-2012, 10:57
do what you want just dont take one dime out my pocket. National Parks generally dont add jobs (except ones the taxpayers foot the bill for) . This country needs real growth, not more handouts to spoiled government hacks.
Leaving aside the political,economic, and philosphical discussion which your remark calls for and which are forbidden on WhiteBlaze, I don't consider National Park Rangers "spoiled government hacks" at all. On the contrary, they are passionate and dedicated to their job, to the Park Service's mission of making the Parks enjoyable for all of us - even you.:rolleyes:
takethisbread
02-15-2012, 13:07
Leaving aside the political,economic, and philosphical discussion which your remark calls for and which are forbidden on WhiteBlaze, I don't consider National Park Rangers "spoiled government hacks" at all. On the contrary, they are passionate and dedicated to their job, to the Park Service's mission of making the Parks enjoyable for all of us - even you.:rolleyes:
Fair enough. Rangers are mostly great. Yet it's still not worth paying for at this juncture. Government employees make on average way over market in terms of salary and post career entitlements/benefits that are justifiable for the times. If Maine or the land donor want a park, then let those people pay for it. I'd be happy to visit it someday and would applaud their efforts to save what they perceive to be indispensable habitat. I would also feel regret for the folks that this move might injure in some fashion.
Mike2012
02-15-2012, 13:26
Fair enough. Rangers are mostly great. Yet it's still not worth paying for at this juncture. Government employees make on average way over market in terms of salary and post career entitlements/benefits that are justifiable for the times. If Maine or the land donor want a park, then let those people pay for it. I'd be happy to visit it someday and would applaud their efforts to save what they perceive to be indispensable habitat. I would also feel regret for the folks that this move might injure in some fashion.
Many rangers and other NPS employees are seasonal and limited to less than six months of work. That saves the tax payers from having to pay full time benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc. Some of these seasonal employees travel from park to park to try to patch together a decent yearly salary. As a former NPS seasonal trailworker (WG-05) I can assure you I was paid well below market for my stoneworking and other skills. Nonetheless I loved working in the park and seeing the things I was able to see. Some people have a long term vision for America and beyond that takes into account the world we are passing on to our children and their childrens' children. Fiscal responsibility includes managing our natural assets for future generations.
WingedMonkey
02-15-2012, 13:30
Many rangers and other NPS employees are seasonal and limited to less than six months of work. That saves the tax payers from having to pay full time benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc. Some of these seasonal employees travel from park to park to try to patch together a decent yearly salary. As a former NPS seasonal trailworker (WG-05) I can assure you I was paid well below market for my stoneworking and other skills. Nonetheless I loved working in the park and seeing the things I was able to see. Some people have a long term vision for America and beyond that takes into account the world we are passing on to our children and their childrens' children. Fiscal responsibility includes managing our natural assets for future generations.
I think that's worth repeating.
:sun
It takes 7 full time park rangers to patrol Acadia Nat. park in winter. ?
Here is one Acadia ranger's summary of his "dream job".
I don't hold it against him personally but hard to justify some of this expense to the American taxpayer.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/11/news/hancock/acadia-park-ranger-lives-dream-job-during-winter-months/
takethisbread
02-15-2012, 17:00
I think that's worth repeating.
:sun
It's not. If it were a bad job there would be not so much competition to get those jobs. It's off market. And you are dismissing the full-time staff and executives. They count. And the botanists, and the do little desk jobs. All with highly favorable pensions( which have been phased out of the private sector) .
There a reason why you see all those 50ish aged thru Hikers on the trail. They did their time working for local, state and federal agencies got their 30 years in and are set for life. Simply a massive burden on those living in the capitalist world.
That said I applaud their efforts. Just don't ask me to pay for it. Maine wants to blow the money, let em.
Not sure how many of my tax dollars have gone to the National Parks, but I expect I've gotten my money's worth.
Of course if it were not for the largess of a Rockefeller, that would not have included Acadia.
Not sure if he was criticized at the time, but his was a monumental gift that will keep on giving.
You might think a hair different if you saw a national park behind the scenes. Plenty of waste. While pleading poverty.
Acadia was a park before the largess of a Rockefeller. He did add some cherry stuff to it.
TJ aka Teej
02-15-2012, 20:31
That was some fine partial quoting, was it not?
Mine, or Woodsy's? :)
I know it's annoying when people read past the headlines, but I usually find it enlightening.
Here's the thing: It is her land, and other people want to use it. People have enjoyed some limited use of other people's land in Maine for generations, including Appalachian Trail hikers. If she gives away her land and it becomes a National Park, people will enjoy limited use of that land for generations to come. I don't find that objectionable.
Wise Old Owl
02-15-2012, 20:52
Could not say it better TJ and I don't know when you made mod but a heart felt congrats from me.....
Folks Rangers are few and far between - the few the proud and the worthy make 10-20 dollars an hour at a three season job - that was found on Glassdoor.... stop worrying about your damn tax dollars on such a small RIDICULOUS portion of any state or gov job. If you really believe that - you are out of touch....Please pay more attention.... to where billions are going.....Today!
I have no affiliations.... I just care about trees. Need a place to land.
Wise Old Owl
02-15-2012, 21:20
It takes 7 full time park rangers to patrol Acadia Nat. park in winter. ?
Here is one Acadia ranger's summary of his "dream job".
I don't hold it against him personally but hard to justify some of this expense to the American taxpayer.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/11/news/hancock/acadia-park-ranger-lives-dream-job-during-winter-months/
FYI To all my rant above was not about this but somewhere in a previous page....
Woodsy.... I read the article and what was the point?... other than he's observant at his job and lucky to have one...
Mike2012
02-15-2012, 21:56
It's not. If it were a bad job there would be not so much competition to get those jobs. It's off market. And you are dismissing the full-time staff and executives. They count. And the botanists, and the do little desk jobs. All with highly favorable pensions( which have been phased out of the private sector) .
There a reason why you see all those 50ish aged thru Hikers on the trail. They did their time working for local, state and federal agencies got their 30 years in and are set for life. Simply a massive burden on those living in the capitalist world.
That said I applaud their efforts. Just don't ask me to pay for it. Maine wants to blow the money, let em.
I didn't say it was a bad job. Acadia actually has a decent winter tourist season including snowmobiling, snowshoeing, ice fishing and cross country skiing. Most of their botanists are seasonal and 3-4 months at that. Check out Friends of Acadia and see how much work is getting done WITHOUT your tax dollars. Other National Parks have non-profit support groups as well.
Mine, or Woodsy's? :)
I know it's annoying when people read past the headlines, but I usually find it enlightening.
Here's the thing: It is her land, and other people want to use it. People have enjoyed some limited use of other people's land in Maine for generations, including Appalachian Trail hikers. If she gives away her land and it becomes a National Park, people will enjoy limited use of that land for generations to come. I don't find that objectionable.
I have no issue with her doing what she wants with her own land. If she wants to buy all 2 million acres have at it. Be sure to endow it for maintenance. So, what is your current address?
FYI To all my rant above was not about this but somewhere in a previous page....
Woodsy.... I read the article and what was the point?... other than he's observant at his job and lucky to have one...
He is an observant guy. He does enjoy his job. I seem to remember he enjoyed the stint of patrolling the outer islands in a rigid hull inflatable. But I may have my strangers confused. In the off season. As in now.
His point might have been that the park is bloated with personnel. Over 100 full time people. I understand you can't get quality on a part time basis, but if you ever drove around and saw the number of pool vehicles it would shock you.
I didn't say it was a bad job. Acadia actually has a decent winter tourist season including snowmobiling, snowshoeing, ice fishing and cross country skiing. Most of their botanists are seasonal and 3-4 months at that. Check out Friends of Acadia and see how much work is getting done WITHOUT your tax dollars. Other National Parks have non-profit support groups as well.
I did see a NJ plate the other day.:) Pretty limited Winter tourist crowd. 2.0 miles of paved road open in one lane. Limited ice and snow.
Friends of Acadia does some fine work, but the park seemed to turn a blind eye to things that might get done by FOA. They have upgraded to some shiny new equipment in bright yellow.
This thing is not about Acadia. It is about the urge of out of state folks, who seem to think roxanne has bought a huge swath of the state and wants to donate it. Restore has been around for a long time.
Mike2012
02-16-2012, 09:14
I have no issue with her doing what she wants with her own land. If she wants to buy all 2 million acres have at it. Be sure to endow it for maintenance. So, what is your current address?
He is an observant guy. He does enjoy his job. I seem to remember he enjoyed the stint of patrolling the outer islands in a rigid hull inflatable. But I may have my strangers confused. In the off season. As in now.
His point might have been that the park is bloated with personnel. Over 100 full time people. I understand you can't get quality on a part time basis, but if you ever drove around and saw the number of pool vehicles it would shock you.
I did see a NJ plate the other day.:) Pretty limited Winter tourist crowd. 2.0 miles of paved road open in one lane. Limited ice and snow.
Friends of Acadia does some fine work, but the park seemed to turn a blind eye to things that might get done by FOA. They have upgraded to some shiny new equipment in bright yellow.
This thing is not about Acadia. It is about the urge of out of state folks, who seem to think roxanne has bought a huge swath of the state and wants to donate it. Restore has been around for a long time.
Well it's not a good snow year is it. I've lived there and seen it and relative to the dead season after leafpeepers winter can have a little action. Don't expect many people from down south to appreciate the winter fun but Mainers sure do. A National Park is national so of course out of staters are going to be interested. aw I better not get started on the the folks who think they are better than others because their family hasn't been in town since before the Civil War. I do know about Restore and the locals have spun the negative for years and years. If that park opens Maine will probably return to Massachusetts or France.
takethisbread
02-16-2012, 09:36
I didn't say it was a bad job. Acadia actually has a decent winter tourist season including snowmobiling, snowshoeing, ice fishing and cross country skiing. Most of their botanists are seasonal and 3-4 months at that. Check out Friends of Acadia and see how much work is getting done WITHOUT your tax dollars. Other National Parks have non-profit support groups as well.
Fantastic. The issue is not Acadia. And like I said before I applaud all the volunteers. Just don't ask ME to pay for a new park. Don't give me the boo
Hoo story on botanists. They do very well.
It's a luxury item the taxpayers can Ill afford.
If it could generate profit without the risk of post career entitlements to laborers, then it would seem worthwhile.
Personally, the national Park system has gotten way too huge. It's a pit of waste right now as virtually all these
Projects are losing huge dollars. Some are necessary (Grand Canyon, Zion, Badlands, Yosemite ect) some aren't .
I think this new proposal for Maine Woods is not necessary. But I do hope the State of Maine can salvage it on their own.
Geez I hope I didn't come across as being here since the Civil War. Not my style.
Sides it was pre-Revolutionary. As in Mayflower and warhoop.
WalkinHome
02-16-2012, 11:07
From a "Mainer" point of view, Weary has been saying it best. Large tracts of undeveloped Maine lands are at risk. The alternative is for them to go to developers which, in my mind, is a one way street. Opportunities like this do not come along very often. There are many, many levels of "National" programs and I would think that one of them might be palatable for the majority. It will be difficult to know and see if no study is done (as long as that study is not binding in any way). I will close with this thought - Myron H. Avery was in favor of a National Park which would have included Baxter State Park and 480 square miles around it. This is made clear in an article by him in the Portland Sunday Telegram, July 31, 1938.
BlackCloud
02-17-2012, 23:46
they are passionate and dedicated to their job, to the Park Service's mission .:rolleyes:
Not any more they're not. Now that the hiring criteria for park rangers is based on race, sex, ethnicity & prior military service, NOT by one's passion to serve the parks, knowledge of the environment, history, etc., they are no better than the average fed worker: 20 hours of actual work a week IF YOU'RE LUCKY.
I've worked for 4 federal agencies, including the NPS. When I stay late, when I work weekends, when I go the extra mile, co-workers call me out; supervisors bemoan that I'm causing them work. You normal people have no idea. The Federal Government IS A DISASTER.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/29/news/state/feds-decline-to-pursue-study-of-quimby-national-park-proposal/
Mike2012
03-01-2012, 11:32
Geez I hope I didn't come across as being here since the Civil War. Not my style.
Sides it was pre-Revolutionary. As in Mayflower and warhoop.
Sup brother? :cool:
peakbagger
03-02-2012, 08:00
The national park service did not include any funding in the current budget to fund the park study. This effectively puts this effort to bed for a couple of years. The interior secretary could have used some existing discretionary funds to do limited study but elected not to.