Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Maine Woods National Monument

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    4,915

    Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

    I figured it was time to start new thread based on todays announcement

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

    Nice time of year to visit, the black files are gone and leaf season is coming up.

    Note - I changed the thread title to reflect the official name
    Last edited by peakbagger; 09-18-2017 at 08:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Hillwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    N44.55162 W70.32107
    Posts
    655
    I say turn it over to Maine's Native American population as partial reparation for everything stolen from them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Brambor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Windham, ME
    Posts
    993
    Good news. I'm planning a bike through the KWW early September. I love it up there.
    Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    309
    I have always supported her right to evict lease holders and change access to her land. My concern with the original proposal was that it advocated a National Park with boundaries outside her plot of land.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    4,915
    When Elliotsville Plantation made the strategic shift from a National Park to National Monument it did get rid of some but not all of the short term major objections, unfortunately most parties agree that this is backdoor method of getting a National Park designation, therefore opposing groups feel they need to keep the NP issues on the forefront. I personally feel that its her land and she can do what she wants with it within the bounds of state law which are pretty minimal for an unorganized territory. Unlike a NP, the federal government only gains control over the donated land and only have the rights that EP had. There could be issues of existing legal rights of inholders and other neighboring land owners who have established rights to access their land over the proposed NM roads. I expect that part of the NM effort up front would be to either establish those rights formally or negotiate them away. In this case, there is always the opportunity for donors to buy more land and add it to the NM but the tactic of "starving out" inholders by denying either direct or economic access to their land is far less likely.

    A proposed NP designation is different, it established a declaration boundary that covered significant private lands in the region. Inside the declaration boundary, the NPS becomes a major participant in what goes on even on private lands. The best nearby example is private land inside the ADKs where the park commission has significant input over activities on private lands. In many cases, NPS has expanded its reach outside park boundaries under the guise that changes to private land outside the park has an impact inside the park. From a national perspective that sounds reasonable but on a regional perspective where private landowners and residents are impacted its lot harder to justify.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Brambor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Windham, ME
    Posts
    993
    IT'S OFFICIAL NOW

    BSP is happy too. They posted a statement on their page. I did not know that but Percival Baxter wanted the area east of BSP protected but did not have enough money to buy that land. Now it is protected.
    Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

  7. #7
    Senior Member psmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chocorua, NH
    Posts
    548
    It's done! Here's the White House announcement:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...t-maines-north

    And here's the full text of the proclamation:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ods-and-waters
    Last edited by psmart; 08-24-2016 at 01:41 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jazzbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Waltham, MA Jazzbo & Marty meet Bigfoot on Kennebago Divide
    Posts
    1,022
    Thanks gents for news and the links. I just came across this new web information site in National Parks web site. It has much information including a detailed map.

    It makes sense they already have invested a lot time and effort in planning.

    https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm
    On #67 of NE67
    On #98 of NEHH
    On #44 of WNH48

    "You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely." Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

  9. #9
    Senior Member jniehof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dover,NH
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzbo View Post
    Thanks gents for news and the links. I just came across this new web information site in National Parks web site. It has much information including a detailed map.
    The map shows the IAT coming out the east border of Baxter. I thought it was technically an out-and-back to Katahdin from where the AT entered the park, then skirted around the south edge of Baxter. Did this get resolved?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by jniehof View Post
    The map shows the IAT coming out the east border of Baxter. I thought it was technically an out-and-back to Katahdin from where the AT entered the park, then skirted around the south edge of Baxter. Did this get resolved?
    Last I understood it, the IAT does not officially begin at Katahdin because the traffic generated by the AT is difficult to manage and another mass of hikers would strain the natural resources and purpose of the Park. As a practical matter, there are trails that can connect from Katahdin to the official IAT start. A route from Abol around the south side of the Park would be physically feasible but I doubt it would be very popular. If that defines the trail, however, purists would need to do it. Then others could say, this looks like an interesting loop ...

    As for the National Monument, it has been anticipated for some time now though federlization scares many people. I hope they're right about the jobs ... a main draw for the area, Baxter Park, only employs about 100. What will draw people is a sensible mixed use, including motorized activities (they spend a lot more locally than hikers). Lots of snow in winter will help, too!

    The Friends of Baxter Park came out in support of a National Monument but many members are at odds with the trustees who endorsed it on their behalf. One could hope that Baxter Park might administer this monument.

    I oppose it but I do think it will ultimately lead to a National Park which will encompass not only the Quimby land but other parcels currently owned by such organizations as The Nature Conservancy and AMC. Lots of changes coming to the area ... Abol Campground recently changed hands, bought by someone from away. I met a camper last week at Baxter Park who complained that a campsite that used to cost him $18/night now costs $54 so those kinds of changes won't help the locals.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    4,915
    The Maine IAT map is pretty clear, the southern terminus is the east boundary of BSP http://www.internationalatmaine.org/#!guides-maps/uw3wa

    If you look at the map, the IAT map conveniently shows trails and shelters inside the park. Officially there is a gap between end of the AT and IAT and its up to the individual to connect the fairly obvious dots. The originally proposed IAT route ran down the Northern Peaks trail to the Russell Pond area and then east via a dead end trail to Norway falls and then out via the former Wassataquoik tote road (running roughly along the Wassataquoik stream through the new NM). This was the route that was publicized without BSP approval which led to the closure of the Northern Peaks trail and the IAT officially being banned from the park.

    Could this change? possibly. Given the current debate about the AT issues in the park I do not see BSP changing their policy, although there is some hope based on a long range plan in the park to improve loop type backpack trips in the park. Unfortunately managing the access to BSP is something the park takes seriously and I dont see them assigning resources to a new wilderness gate. The current IAT terminus maximizes the length of the IAT through the NM so I do not see why the original alignment proposed through the park would be an improvement.

    I do expect that individuals are going to be pushing the rules and expect that trail links to BSP is going to be an ongoing issue between the NM and BSP

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    740
    That is exciting news!

    can someone post the 'must see' places- I am planning a trip in the fall to either Acadia NP or Baxter SP but instead want to visit here.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    That is exciting news!

    can someone post the 'must see' places- I am planning a trip in the fall to either Acadia NP or Baxter SP but instead want to visit here.
    Bob, if you're referrimg to the must see places on the IAT I suggest Carlton Provincial Park in New Brunswick, Mon Albert and Jacques Cartier (by guide to find the Caribou herd) in the midst of the Gaspe, and lands end at Forrillon CNP. Take a kayak with you as all three have paddle opportunities: lakes in Carlton PP, Lac Cascapedia in the Gaspe not far from Mon Albert, and among the seals at Forrilon. The French word for seal, by the way, is "phoque" so have some fun with that.

    If you're referring to the must see places in the National Monument, I'd see more of Baxter Park first because when that gets going there'll be so many people there that, as Yogi Berra said, nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bethlehem, NH
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Brambor View Post
    IT'S OFFICIAL NOW

    BSP is happy too. They posted a statement on their page. I did not know that but Percival Baxter wanted the area east of BSP protected but did not have enough money to buy that land. Now it is protected.
    Family & I were recently at Baxter, so upon return I was skimming "Legacy of a Lifetime: The Story of Baxter State Park" by Dr. John W. Hakola (if you don't have this, it's a must have for Baxter fans). Was curious about other things but intrigued by a chapter on 'The National Park Controversy'. Being very aware of the recent efforts I had to read.

    The first discussions from conservationists towards such was based on perceived degradation of resources based on increasing use, but no (yet) existing authority or funding to manage use. Many felt they needed the Fed to resolve- as the CCC was busy all over developing parks and facilities throughout US. Percival said he had no problem with a national park in the Katahdin Region- just not "my park". His great political skill headed off federal acquisition, and also laid the foundation and funding for the Baxter State Park Authority, to also address the management concerns.

    I'm thrilled by the news as I was just appreciating this landscape.

  15. #15
    Senior Member injektilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine
    Posts
    192
    An open letter from BSP to their new neighbors...

    http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/KWWNM.pdf

Posting Permissions

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