Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-27-2003
    Location
    northern whites
    Posts
    3,904

    Default Maine Woods National Monument

    Looks like its getting close

    https://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/...us-government/

    Nice time to fly up to the north woods and make speech, the black flies are gone, things are so dry that the mosquitoes are probably pretty mild and leaf season is coming up.

  2. #2
    CDT - 2013, PCT - 2009, AT - 1300 miles done burger's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-03-2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Queue the whining from the Mainers about how this is going to destroy their state and how they, not Mrs. Quimby, should get the final say over what happens to this land.

  3. #3
    Registered User CoolBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-29-2015
    Location
    Hernando, FL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burger View Post
    Queue the whining from the Mainers about how this is going to destroy their state and how they, not Mrs. Quimby, should get the final say over what happens to this land.
    Not all Mainers are angry about this, just like our friends to the the south are not ALL Massholes...

  4. #4
    CDT - 2013, PCT - 2009, AT - 1300 miles done burger's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-03-2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolBobby View Post
    Not all Mainers are angry about this, just like our friends to the the south are not ALL Massholes...
    I know...my comment was mostly snark. But there is a vocal contigent of anti-Quimby/anti-monument folks around here. Hopefully this announcement (which is great news, btw), will shut them up for good.

    (Also, I'm not originally from MA and haven't lived there in years. Feel free to insult Massholes to your heart's content

  5. #5
    Registered User CoolBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-29-2015
    Location
    Hernando, FL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burger View Post
    I know...my comment was mostly snark. But there is a vocal contigent of anti-Quimby/anti-monument folks around here. Hopefully this announcement (which is great news, btw), will shut them up for good.

    (Also, I'm not originally from MA and haven't lived there in years. Feel free to insult Massholes to your heart's content
    I can't insult too many massholes while I wear this BoSox hat.
    Being from Maine, and still a Maine tax payer, I am very familiar with the " That is the way its always been he'a, fuh a wicked long time..." mentality with regard to public use of private land. We constantly have long time neighbors mad at us for closing our property off from public hunting, snowmobile trails, and public access. We didn't stop all access, we just require written permission now.

    I wish I had 70K acres to give away. I sure as (#$*%# would not give it to the Government. But the beauty of our system allows Mrs. Quimby to do just that... Good for her.

  6. #6
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,874
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    What a remarkable thing for Mrs. Quimby and her family to do.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    If it comes with some guarantee of public access, and prevents real estate development and/or commercial exploitation (eg. lumber harvesting) I'm all for it. Good on Ms. Quimby.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-27-2003
    Location
    northern whites
    Posts
    3,904

    Default

    Its biggest limitation is that the major attraction, Mt Katahdin and all the nearby high peaks are not in the proposed monument boundary and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be accessible directly from the monument due to substantially different management approaches. Unlike the monument that is starting with a clean slate, BSPs rules were pretty well cast in stone in June of 1969 when Percival Baxter passed away. He established his dislike for the feds having any control of BSP and his intent along with the deeds of trust pretty well limits any future changes. The last time an outside party, the IAT, attempted to establish access through the wassatquoik region things didn't end well.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-11-2002
    Location
    Manchester Ctr, VT
    Posts
    2,342
    Images
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    If it comes with some guarantee of public access, and prevents real estate development and/or commercial exploitation (eg. lumber harvesting) I'm all for it. Good on Ms. Quimby.
    Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.
    Order your copy of the Appalachian Trail Passport at www.ATPassport.com

    Green Mountain House Hostel
    Manchester Center, VT

    http://www.greenmountainhouse.net

  10. #10
    CDT - 2013, PCT - 2009, AT - 1300 miles done burger's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-03-2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.
    That's not remotely true in Maine. Thanks to all of the industrial logging that happens in the state, there is absolutely no need for additional logging to promote "forest health." (FWIW, I'm a PhD with multiple publications on this very subject). And the Monument will bring far more jobs than logging does--as the logging industry automates processes, it has been shedding jobs for decades.

  11. #11
    Registered User colorado_rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-20-2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,127
    Images
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.
    Hmmmm.... lumber harvesting also creates... let's see... Houses? Other buildings? Furniture? Paper products? Mostly kinda important products, one would think.

    I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorado_rob View Post
    Hmmmm.... lumber harvesting also creates... let's see... Houses? Other buildings? Furniture? Paper products? Mostly kinda important products, one would think.

    I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?
    With the demise of nearly all the paper mills, they have resorted to burning the trees as "renewable energy" mostly to keep some loggers and truckers busy. Although there are some trees used for lumber, the majority of our trees are "junk wood".

    I seem to remember most of the opposition by locals to designating the land as National Park was some of them would loose the leases on their camps and possible restrictions to snowmobiling and hunting. But mostly loosing access to their camps.
    The AT - It has it's ups and downs...

  13. #13
    "Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
    Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
    Call for his whisky
    He can call for his tea
    Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
    Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan

    Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.

  14. #14

    Default

    This a wonderful news - many thanks to the Quimby family!
    The new KW&W National Park page: https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm
    Teej

    "[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-27-2003
    Location
    northern whites
    Posts
    3,904

    Default

    "I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?"

    Its a backdoor method of someday establishing a national park. NPs requires congressional approval which would not be forth coming. NMs just require presidential approval. The big difference is the NM is only the land Quimby donated, any inholdings aren't affected by the designation (although they may be more valuable for tourism if a tourist trade ever occurs). A NP designation draws a big "circle" around an area called a declaration boundary. The previously proposed NPs declaration boundary was much larger encompassing significant private land owned by other entities. Once a NP is declared it can impose its will on the private properties inside the boundary. The NP also can impose their will on development outside the boundary under the guise that outside development will impact the park.

    Quimby had already thrown out all the leaseholders. She did keep a couple and fixed them up for use by the NM. The leases may have been in familys for many years but they were year by year at the will of the owner. There is rather famous regional book about a lost kid on Katahdin called Lost on a Mountain in Maine. He was found in one of the camps in the area of the proposed NP

    With respect to burning wood for power, that's pretty much a fallacy locally, it costs far more to cut a tree and chip if for fuel than it can be sold for. The only way it pencils out is if the trees are being cut for something else like sawmills and then the tops get chipped for biomass.

  16. #16
    Registered User colorado_rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-20-2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,127
    Images
    3

    Default

    Thanks for the excellent summary on NM's vs. NP's, Peakbagger.

  17. #17
    CDT - 2013, PCT - 2009, AT - 1300 miles done burger's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-03-2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    "I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?"

    Its a backdoor method of someday establishing a national park. NPs requires congressional approval which would not be forth coming. NMs just require presidential approval. The big difference is the NM is only the land Quimby donated, any inholdings aren't affected by the designation (although they may be more valuable for tourism if a tourist trade ever occurs). A NP designation draws a big "circle" around an area called a declaration boundary. The previously proposed NPs declaration boundary was much larger encompassing significant private land owned by other entities. Once a NP is declared it can impose its will on the private properties inside the boundary. The NP also can impose their will on development outside the boundary under the guise that outside development will impact the park.

    Quimby had already thrown out all the leaseholders. She did keep a couple and fixed them up for use by the NM. The leases may have been in familys for many years but they were year by year at the will of the owner. There is rather famous regional book about a lost kid on Katahdin called Lost on a Mountain in Maine. He was found in one of the camps in the area of the proposed NP
    Even after the monument has been established, Peakbagger is still making up lies about it. Let me correct the record.

    First, when a national park is established by Congress, the enacting legislation determines how inholdings are handled. Most purchases of inholdings require congressional approval (https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM25.pdf ). In the absence of a law turning this monument into a national park, there will be NO condemnation of any property. Given which party controls Congress, I can't imagine that changing anytime soon.

    Second, NPS has ZERO control over development outside of the park on private lands. Development adjacent to parks is actually a big problem, and studies have documented large increases in such development in recent decades. Some relevant figures are here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/940.full There have also been numerous instances of states and federal agencies approving mines and other industrial development adjacent to parks. Even USFS has little respect for parks--the national forests in Wyoming did so much logging adjacent to Yellowstone in the 70s and 80s that you could, at the time, see the western boundary of the park from space.

    Third, as a property owner, Quimby is not under any legal or ethical obligation to continue any leases on her property. If she violated any laws or contracts, I hope that the affected people pursue legal remedies. But I have yet to hear of any such instances, and I suspect that this is just more whining by anti-park people.

    Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the BS from the anti-park people. You guys lost, move on--I'm sure you can find another park proposal somewhere else to oppose.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-17-2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    60
    Posts
    4,673

    Default

    It says it was established today and they already have a web site and a superintendent. Plus two visitor centers today. That was quick.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-27-2003
    Location
    northern whites
    Posts
    3,904

    Default

    Thanks for the education Doctor. Where exactly did I say that there would be condemnation of land in either situation?

    You may or may not be familiar with the recent addition to Acadia NP outside the declaration boundary that was done without congressional approval. After the stink was raised both sides made up so it didn't tarnish the celebration.

    I agree with you entirely that Quimby could and did throw long term leaseholders off the land, she did it years ago when she bought it. It just was one of many things that did not win her any fans.

  20. #20

    Default

    Can we be OK with the park and still hate Quimby? As someone who has walked those lands, not the part where she scraped a road, but the IAT section, I am glad that land will be protected. I'm especially glad it is no longer in her possession. A mean and spiteful person, she had previously threatened to fence off the entire thing and eliminate any access at all if she didn't get her NP. Considering she doesn't have anything there to make a NP out of other than a view of the really nice park next door I'm glad she backed off on that.
    “The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait until that other is ready...”~Henry David Thoreau

    http://lesstraveledby.net
    YouTube Channel
    Trailspace Reviews

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •