MWI ( Maine Woods Inititive ), Can it be Better?

[Jim lombard]

From an article written by Ed Hawkins.

Yes, the MWI ( Maine Woods Inititive ). A great idea,
a great concept, and a great project for the AMC.

The purchase of a 37,000 acre parcel of forest, in the
Maine 100-mile wilderness area, for permanent protect-
ion and management, under the stewardship of the AMC
is certainly a noble undertaking. An opportunity for the
AMC to demonstrate and practice what it preaches to
all of us, through its many educational workshops,
seminars, and volunteer led recreational trips & activities.

I can support most ( probably 90% ) of what the current
MWI plan and outline proposes.

However, I do not suport current MWI projections and
plans, for full service facilities within this parcel, on either the short term or the long term.

The Little Lyford Ponds Camps full service facility already exists. So, O.K., the AMC fixes it up, maintains it, and makes improvements for ongoing continuous use.

So why do we need "two more" similar facilities
( currently projected ) on two pristine lakes within this parcel?? And, an easement for a 3rd, somewhere in the future?? All located within 10-mile walking distance of the other. And, discussions of buying additional properties ( hunting camps, etc. ), outside, and on the fringe of the MWI parcel, for additional, future, full service facilities.

Full service facilities are "high overhead". They are expensive to build, and expensive to maintain. And, they do not represent low impact use of the MWI property.

And, they are "self-perpetuating", in that they require expensive fees for visitors, and ever increasing demands by these same visitors for more.

These full service facilities are just an expansion of the
AMC into the high-end recreational "resort" business.

I suggest, that the MWI is an opportunity for the AMC
to change its model and its m.o. ( modus operandi ).

The BSP ( Baxter State Park ) model would be ideal
for this parcel and the MWI project.

The BSP model, is, to maintain trails, and to offer tent
sites, leantos, and a limited number of self-service camps.
No running water, electricity, etc. Outhouse facilities,
and gravel roads, adequate for low speed travel, within
the park, are two of the primary maintenance items. The
park is 100% carry in and carry out!!!

All of the above are low overhead, and low maintenance,
which in turn perpetuates, and keeps the property pristine
and wild. And, access fees remain low and reasonable.

Access to the property is limited by the availability of
the above listed tent sites, leantos, and self-service camps. And, by pre-determined limits for parking, within the park, for day visitors.

The AMC will tell us that they need full service facilities
to generate income to cover the costs of the MWI
property.

This is not true!!! The MWI property is "already", almost completely paid for, through grants, donations, etc.

And, remember, the AMC will not be paying property
taxes on the MWI parcel. And, they will not be paying
income taxes.

The idea, that the AMC will need high-end "resort" type,
full service, income producing facilities, to support the property, is a fallacy!!!

The only purpose served by the full service facilities is for the satisfaction of "high-end" visitors with money. People who like to think they are experiancing the wilderness, while being "catered to" in a full service "resort".

This may be the AMC's idea and way of attracting
money through future donations, grants, wills, etc. And,
it may work!!! But, is this really what the AMC is
about?? Are these the values that we ( AMC members )
espouse going forward??

These are some of my thoughts and opinions. You do
not have to agree!!

I urge and suggest that you all pay attention to what is happening and being proposed with this project. Ask questions and request information. And, most importantly voice your opinions, and write letters expressing your own thoughts and opinions about this project.

As dues paying members you have a right to know what
you club is about, and where it is headed. Does it
represent you, and the overall direction you expect of
the AMC???

Sincerely

Ed Hawkins

Note: Ed is not a member of Views but he wanted to generate conversation about this project.

 

[Stan]

One thing I miss with the "MWI" is that the K-I Road was often kept open all winter making Gulf Hagas and other destinations more accessible. Now the only motorized vehicles allowed are snowmobiles.

I wouldn't exactly call Little Lyford Pond Camps "full service". The only service they provide that you don't get at Daicey Pond or Kidney Pond in BSP is the dining hall. Otherwise they're pretty rustic. And, whereas Daicey Pond and Kidney Pond camps front right on the water, Little Lyford camp is well away from the pond. I like the old sporting camp model and feel it is an appropriate model seeped in tradition for the area ... the thought of such facilities a day's hike or ski apart is very inviting.

 

[David Metsky]

Where was Ed's article published?

Here is some information from the AMC about the Maine Woods project.

-dave-

 

[Jim lombard]

Where was Ed's article published?

Here is some information from the AMC about the Maine Woods project.

-dave-

Dave, here is what Ed sent me,

THIS LETTER OR ARTICLE WILL BE POSTED IN AN
UPCOMING ISSUE OF THE "MOUNTAIN PASSAGES" ( THE
NH CHAPTER AMC NEWSLETTER ). IT WILL, HOWEVER,
AGAINST MY WISHES, BE SEVERELY EDITED.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Where was Ed's article published?

Here is some information from the AMC about the Maine Woods project.

-dave-

Dave -

I've believed I've seen this text in an email circulated to the NH Chapter's leader's list a few months ago. I know Ed has some very strong opinions on the Maine Woods project. And on many other topics.

Kevin

 

[Lawn Sale]

Great, another out-of-state business wants to take over land in Maine, only they don't want to pay income or property taxes. Its use doesn't matter to me, the net result is the same.

I am against it.

 

[arghman]

This is a pretty complex issue... here's my take on it.

I have had extremely mixed feelings about AMC lately, to the point where I've felt like resigning my membership. I have to agree w/ Ed with almost all of his points, and this is one of those negatives for me (another big one being the way AMC has approached their PR campaign on WMNF Wilderness). BUT -- I am very grateful that AMC stepped in & bought the parcels, and I gave them a small donation to help support the project (where I understood "the project" as buying the parcels & my reasons for donating $$$ extended to conservation purposes only). The North Woods has undergone a huge turnover in land ownership and there are some really scary characters out there (TR Dillon, Plum Creek, etc.). My preference for property management in the North Woods is roughly as follows:

1) Ecologically important areas should be off limits to development/timbering
2) As much land as possible should be open to the public for hiking/skiing/snowshoeing/hunting
3) Some land should be designated for recreational trails & be off limits for timbering, for aesthetic reasons
4) Areas w/ higher-profile recreational use (huts, etc.) -- minimal but I'm not exactly sure
5) The rest of it should be under continued timber use, allowing sustainable timbering only.
6) There should be a conservation easement prohibiting development and enforcing (1), (2), (3), and (5) [I'm not sure about #4].

AMC's proposal is pretty close to this, I think.
What I would have rather seen is for AMC to have worked out the ecologically important areas & recreational trails (no addl facilities), put a conservation easement on the land, and sold all of it except Little Lyford Camp to a reputable timber management company.

That's roughly what happened with IP's Pittsburg lands in the northern part of the state; if I remember correctly, 25000 acres went to the state as a natural area, and the rest got sold to Lyme Timber with a conservation easement on it.

Whoever owns it has to pay timber taxes. (I am doubtful that nonprofits can avoid paying timber taxes... if this the case, then someone should call their legislators and get them to change that)

As far as property taxes go -- on the developed portion of the property, if AMC doesn't make a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) then they're likely to have some bad relations w/ the local towns.

So why do we need "two more" similar facilities
( currently projected ) on two pristine lakes within this parcel?? And, an easement for a 3rd, somewhere in the future??

The word "easement" here makes me think that Ed's got this backwards; it sounds like AMC is planning on putting a conservation easement on the property with exclusion areas left out. (You don't need to put an easement on land that you own to enable you to build something) This is typical for many landowners who are interested in protecting the bulk of their property but don't want to give all of the value away & reserve the right to carve out a small area for development... easements are forever and it's a lot to ask of a landowner.

I'd rather they not build any more facilities beyond Little Lyford (or at least nothing more than some shelters or leantos), but lately I've had exactly ZERO luck feeling like I have any power to influence AMC policies.

Lawn Sale: I can understand your sentiment re: taxes, I just hope you're aware of all the alternatives for who else could be owning the property & cutting 90% of the timber & carving it up into kingdom lots or something.

 

[bryan]

i want to say i support the amc as an institution ( i have worked for them), but their movements continue to make me think " backcountry corportation". they continually up prices on services and continue to "grow the business" with new acquisitions which will generate more revenue. i am not completely familiar with what is going on in maine, but i do know that they had to do some serious pr up there to keep the local commuinities from lashing out against the "boston, liberal hippies" invading their communities, telling them snowmobiles are bad, etc. i agree that a bsp model is ideal. the amc sees that model as not supplying the "desired" revenue (mind you this org. has a serious bank account for a non-profit). sometimes i wonder if they shouldn't cut out all the glossy magazine imaging, stop paying the "leaders" of the organization six figures and get back to what matters.
can we blame this all on joe dodge? high mountain hospitality and all that jargon. people can't carry their own stoves......i heard that lakes of the clouds is getting a jacuzzi......that makes the $80+ worth while.
preservation versus growth of an organization.

bryan