National Park Proposal East of Baxter Heating up

I don't know how you could infer that I was talking about any of the two things you laid out but I'm not even gonna play that game

egilbe said:

Are you talking about the paper companies that allowed access to their property by the public? Or are ypu talking about Roxanne Quimby who closed all the roads to the property and closed off all access? There was a lot of tourism dollars lost to her actions.

Click to expand...

The subtleties between a national monument and a park are fairly significant. A national monument appears to be the US government converting government land into a different management status. I expect the process is that EP offers the land to the government and then the president makes a conditional acceptance of the offered land as a national monument. Along with the land donation is an endowment fund with what I expect are significant restrictions on how those funds can be spent thus EP retains some control over the land without actually owning it. I do not believe that a monument has a declaration boundary like a National Park (and National forest) does. The declaration boundary's similar to the blue line in the ADKs, lays out an area of land where the government may or may not own all the land but gains some means of control of non owned land. This is a significant difference as the other private inholders of this area gain an involuntary partner, I.E. the NPS whose ultimate goal is the acquire all the inholdings and if EPs stated goal is implemented is to restore the area to wilderness state. The inholders also involuntarily gain a host of regulatory oversight that was not present before. The concept of willing buyer/willing seller is brought up on occasion as an argument by advocates of a federal declaration but the reality is that the inholders property and his/her ability to earn income is impacted by the change in regulatory stature. This is generally a sticky legal concept of "involuntary taking" where a government entity without purchasing a property takes all or a portion of a properties value by regulatory means. This inevitably ends up in court and rarely does an owner win as the government effectively has infinite legal resources while the owner does not. In the case of the proposed Maine Woods National Park, a large portion of the land in the proposed declaration boundary is not owned by EP. As the road network and infrastructure to access the inholdings will be effectively owned and controlled by the NPS, decisions on NPS managed land can and traditionally do impact the inholders. This has happened in the past on EP owned lands where key access points were gated that had been previously used by the public and area landholders and reportedly has happened in the past in the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge to the east.

The trump card of a National Park declaration is that the NP stamp inherently bestows a cachet that will lead to large throngs of money wielding tourists. There are frequent comparisons with Acadia but the reality is that Acadia is special due to the proximity to the coast of very impressive topography, diverse habitats along with the extensive carriage road and other man made improvements. Tourists have always been attracted to the Maine coast and there was a long term tradition of summer colonies along the coasts long before Acadia. In comparison the EP properties are effectively former industrial working forests similar to millions of acres in the region. With the exception of the East Branch there are no particular areas of scenic beauty beyond vistas into BSP to the west. Although there may be an initial inrush of guests I expect that it will probably earn the moniker the Black Fly National Park in a few years as people figure out that if they want a far better experience, they just make reservations next door in BSP where the real area of national interest resides or go farther west and visit the AMC 100 mile wilderness complex which is managed in a similar manner to the proposed MWNP.

I agree that the main deficiency so far has been the presentation of the outdoor opportunities within this newly proposed land.

peakbagger said:

The subtleties between a national monument and a park are fairly significant. A national monument appears to be the US government converting government land into a different management status. I expect the process is that EP offers the land to the government and then the president makes a conditional acceptance of the offered land as a national monument. Along with the land donation is an endowment fund with what I expect are significant restrictions on how those funds can be spent thus EP retains some control over the land without actually owning it. I do not believe that a monument has a declaration boundary like a National Park (and National forest) does. The declaration boundary's similar to the blue line in the ADKs, lays out an area of land where the government may or may not own all the land but gains some means of control of non owned land. This is a significant difference as the other private inholders of this area gain an involuntary partner, I.E. the NPS whose ultimate goal is the acquire all the inholdings and if EPs stated goal is implemented is to restore the area to wilderness state. The inholders also involuntarily gain a host of regulatory oversight that was not present before. The concept of willing buyer/willing seller is brought up on occasion as an argument by advocates of a federal declaration but the reality is that the inholders property and his/her ability to earn income is impacted by the change in regulatory stature. This is generally a sticky legal concept of "involuntary taking" where a government entity without purchasing a property takes all or a portion of a properties value by regulatory means. This inevitably ends up in court and rarely does an owner win as the government effectively has infinite legal resources while the owner does not. In the case of the proposed Maine Woods National Park, a large portion of the land in the proposed declaration boundary is not owned by EP. As the road network and infrastructure to access the inholdings will be effectively owned and controlled by the NPS, decisions on NPS managed land can and traditionally do impact the inholders. This has happened in the past on EP owned lands where key access points were gated that had been previously used by the public and area landholders and reportedly has happened in the past in the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge to the east.

The trump card of a National Park declaration is that the NP stamp inherently bestows a cachet that will lead to large throngs of money wielding tourists. There are frequent comparisons with Acadia but the reality is that Acadia is special due to the proximity to the coast of very impressive topography, diverse habitats along with the extensive carriage road and other man made improvements. Tourists have always been attracted to the Maine coast and there was a long term tradition of summer colonies along the coasts long before Acadia. In comparison the EP properties are effectively former industrial working forests similar to millions of acres in the region. With the exception of the East Branch there are no particular areas of scenic beauty beyond vistas into BSP to the west. Although there may be an initial inrush of guests I expect that it will probably earn the moniker the Black Fly National Park in a few years as people figure out that if they want a far better experience, they just make reservations next door in BSP where the real area of national interest resides or go farther west and visit the AMC 100 mile wilderness complex which is managed in a similar manner to the proposed MWNP.

Click to expand...

Brambor said:

I agree that the main deficiency so far has been the presentation of the outdoor opportunities within this newly proposed land.

Click to expand...

And aside from the recreational opportunities denied on the Quimby lands, what opportunities would a National Monument create that don't already exist in Baxter State Park and in the North Maine Woods?

are you kidding? The whole region is a goldmine for opportunities (known and undiscovered) that would be either preserved or enhanced and done so with the umbrella of further preservation and uniform quality of wildlife management.

I wish someone from the group hired me for a couple of years. I could go to town with this .

I'm wondering if the National Monument move is related to the fact that the president can declare any federal land a national monument (except in AK and WY). Congress needs to be involved to make a NP.

I'm wondering if the National Monument move is related to the fact that the president can declare any federal land a national monument (except in AK and WY). Congress needs to be involved to make a NP.

Yup that is the stated reason. The congressional delegation for Maine had stated they will withhold support until there is local support which there hasn't been. Even the EP folks gave lip service to local support and has obviously run paid PR efforts to try to drum up local support. Apparently they also have actively been paying lobbyists to work on a backup plan for the monument designation. Politically this is a nice legacy for a lame duck president, nice photo op.

Several national preservationists have come out in general about ignoring local support on projects like these, they generally argue the locals are too short sited and in generally uneducated to understand the bigger picture. (thus obviously doesn't sell well with the locals) Do note the original intent of this park was never as tourist attraction it rather was a small portion of larger landscape vision of a wilderness preserve that was espoused in the original Maine Woods National Park proposal http://www.mainewoodsnationalpark.com/the-park.html. The original intent was exclusionist preservation, shut down the roads, limit access and let it go back to nature, this didn't sell and R Quimby was too closely associated with the original concept so the latest attempt is PR effort to convert it into a economic engine to try to gain acceptance.

"The original intent was exclusionist preservation, shut down the roads, limit access and let it go back to nature,"

So, kind of like the NFS treatment of the Pemi Wilderness? I can't see that plan as providing much of an economic draw. Given the response to the current NFS Pemi direction, I don't see it being popular even among outdoor users.

National Monument is the way to go.

I'm actually hoping Obama designates 10 more monuments before he leaves office (like what Bill Clinton did)

peakbagger said:

R Quimby was too closely associated with the original concept...

Click to expand...

Peakbagger, are you saying you think the current plan is just a foot in the door in order to achieve the older park proposal? That is what much of the current anti-park side focuses on, despite consistent denial of that by EP.

Guthook said:

Peakbagger, are you saying you think the current plan is just a foot in the door in order to achieve the older park proposal? That is what much of the current anti-park side focuses on, despite consistent denial of that by EP.

Click to expand...

A leopard cant change its spots. Roxanne owns the land. Shes already stated no one can tell her what to do with it. There was such pushback from so many groups opposed to her plans to RESTORE the north woods that her son took over as the face of the effort. If you think the goal hasnt changed, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I cant imagine that there is much more to develop up there other than hiking, four wheeling, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling and every 50 years or so, harvest some timber. It can be a tourist draw, but you are not going to get the same tourists as Acadia or the Smoky Mountains, nor would i like to see it that developed.

Brambor said:

are you kidding? The whole region is a goldmine for opportunities (known and undiscovered) that would be either preserved or enhanced and done so with the umbrella of further preservation and uniform quality of wildlife management.

Click to expand...

If this was a response to my comment, I ask again: And aside from the recreational opportunities denied on the Quimby lands, what opportunities would a National Monument create that don't already exist in Baxter State Park and in the North Maine Woods?

Can you be specific?

And what wildlife management can improve on the biologists and scientists who work for the state of Maine, collegessand universities and conservation organizations?

The area is distressed now and the promise of new recreation is supposed to improve that? I'd guess it would actually worsen it as the working forest would probably be diminished even further and property values and condition of homes and camps deteriorate as de facto land use control shifts to distant bureaucrats with agendas far removed from the residents and traditions of the area.

I do support national park and monument designation where it has reasonable local support, serves a purpose which cannot otherwise be served, preserves something unique that cannot otherwise be preserved and comes with resources to assure the promises are met. None of those conditions exist in any proposed federalization of these lands.

Maine has a unique mix of locally inspired and controlled conservation and generous public access to private lands. It would be a big mistake to lose that.

I expect that the "exclusionist preservation" management goal has mellowed for EP (now rebranded as Katahdin Woods and Waters). The original advocates for landscape level preservation like Restore the North Woods and Forest Ecology Network which were quite active in the region are now ghost organizations with ghost websites. Jamie Sayen, a regional advocate for Monkeywrenching is now a school teacher shilling a book on closed papermills part time in northern NH, Jonathan Carter the poster child "prep school kid" from Mass, has dropped out of public view at his farm out in rural maine. The groups were donation driven groups who pushed a radical viewpoint to appeal to donors and as the money dried up, they either went inactive or shifted to where the money went which was industrial wind.

My perception is that Roxanne bought the radical agenda at the time and decided to use her unexpected riches to support the movement which has fortunately collapsed as the concept of multiple use and sustainable forestry has been shown to be a far more valid compromise for the Maine woods. Things have changed significantly when the Nature Conservancy and the AMC both are advocates of sustainable forestry on lands they own in Maine. Much of the land in the original far more extensive MWNP proposal is now under various forms or less restrictive conservation easements. Lucas St Clair's stated concept for EP, which is currently partially implemented, appears to be a more conventional NP with a interior road system and drive in campgrounds. This is very similar to the northern parts of BSP (which incidentally saw a peak in use years ago and is now underutilized). Like the preservationist movement, I expect Roxanne has mellowed somewhat and really now is just desperate to establish a long term legacy to legitimize her move up to high society. That is probably one of the reasons that there appears to be no interest in appending these parcels to BSP, it will pull the spotlight off the generous donor even though the management goals are quite similar. The rebranded name invoking Katahdin is indicative of this distinction, even though the actual proposed area is several miles to the NE of Katahdin, EP knows that the only way to gain national prominence is to link it to the Katahdin massive without mentioning the next door neighbor BSP.

Some will argue that the current MWNP proposal is not the threat it was the area years ago, but it still does introduce a new potentially obtrusive long term federal management approach into the region and also sets up the future potential for private landholders to be held hostage by declaration boundaries when the what is regarded as inevitable transition to a NP happens. The average local resident doesn't have the time or interest in looking at subtleties and each side of this effort have both demonized the other side to turn it into clear immediate distinction.

I can not go into specifics due reasons I do not want to mention and also because it would take time to think it through properly. I'll ramble a bit, however, for the time that I can devote to this post:


This might sound ridiculous especially knowing how revered Yellowstone is but in general, the area of the original proposal (included Greenville, Moosehead Lake, Roxanne's land, Parts of Allagash, Lobster Lake, Caucmogomoc (sic) lake...) to me is no less interesting than Yellowstone. Really, besides Yellowstone Canyon and the geysers at first glance the Yellowstone does not strike me as a breathtaking locality. It has similar mountains to our White Mountains, tons of woods, one big lake, some smaller lakes, some rivers to fish.

The North Woods is somewhat similar. Especially with the neighboring Baxter we have mountains to hike, we have Moosehead Lake (I would consider it prettier than Yellowstone Lake) we have 2-3 great rivers to fish, we have more ponds to fish... we have nicely abutting cities like Greenville and Rockwood and Dexter that would support tourism better than the 'villages' in Yellowstone.

What does majority of visitors to Yellowstone do? In a few days they drive to Old Faithful, they drive and stop at 5-10 spots to see the geysers, they drive to the bridge over Yellowstone lake, they drive to see the Yellowstone canyon, they eat and go home. They do not hike the trails and mountains of Yellowstone, they fear wolves and bears away from the safety of their car. They might fish in the proximity of the campground but they do not usually do the difficult fishing of Slough Creek nor do they want to walk that far or drive on dirt road to get there. The major tourist pressure is at the concession stands and park education programs showing videos or telling stories about what is in Yellowstone. People buy food and t-shirts.

Few do serious fly fishing, few hike, few really bring their own boat, snowmobile or cross country ski, few go backcountry camping (besides established campgrounds). Why? Because they fly in from around the world.

There are 3-4 arteries that bring the tourists to the park. Mostly 2: From Jackson Hole and from Montana near Mammoth Springs.

Comparing North Woods we see similarities:

Maine arteries from Greenville, Rockwood and maybe Millinocket.
More lakes and ponds, more islands on lakes (important for camping spots and personal watercraft wandering enjoyment), Moose River, Roach River, East Outlet, West Branch are all outstanding fisheries, better existing tourist infrastracture on Moosehead Lake with Kineo, Rockwood and Greenville, well established hiking trails to Kineo, Spencers, Squaw and Baxter, well established backcountry camps/huts, hunting, snowmobilling and even a potential for reestablishing existing downhill skiing opportunity.

Yet, people flock to Yellowstone and not to North Woods. Why?

Yellowstone is a National Park. Being a National Park is a HUGE ADVERTISING BENEFIT. People visit National Parks. They think they enjoy nature, they want to visit a certain part of the country (Yellowstone=West), (North Woods could = New England) and Yellowstone is on the list. Next thing is they look it up and see the main attractions pictures of a bear, fox, geyser and they're sold to go. In comparison North Woods does not exist. There is no national listing to hit a domestic or international tourist square in the face. Not many know much about Maine besides Lobsters. On a related note, tourists forgo much nicer views and nature of the Wind River Range in Wyoming but they will go to Yellowstone. Why? Because Yellowstone is a National Park.

What would establishing of a National Park do for North Woods? It would put them on the map of lists everywhere in the world as attractions to visit USA. The size of North Woods (similar to Yellowstone) MATTERS as well. Tourists would flock to the bordering municipalities like Greenville, Rockwood, Dexter and maybe Millinocket and for the most part they would stay there for reasons similar to Yellowstone. They just want to drive their car to the attractions and then return to the comfort of the 'wilderness themed lodge hotel room'. This would be an instant boost to the economy of these towns.

What would establishing a unified management/protection of North Woods National Park do? It would prevent Plum Creek, Golf Course, Paper Mill, nonsustainable logging nonsense of the past that has not helped the region prosper. It would direct dollars to the main infrastructure to support roads and tourist rest areas in this park and thus also focusing impact of pressure on these maintained hotspots. It would improve commerce in Kokadjo, wilderness camps, camp spots, snowmobille rental, ski rental, guiding services through international exposure.

What would need to be done: Classify and glorify and publish the days of the past when people actually worked independently to survive. That means woodsmen, fishermen, outdoorsmen, hunters ... get the 'derps' out of the woods, have them clean their backyards, have them go prosper in envirotourism instead of food stamps, waxing about old days at the mill, shooting their guns and sharpening their crayons for their don't tread on me coloring books. Scout, hike, identify beauty spots and classify them in terms of impact and accessibility and provide path to advertising access (car, wilderness trip, hike, backcountry). Places like Kineo, mountain tops, famous fishing pools, certain camping islands, waterfalls, ice caves, Gulf Hagas ... all of these as well as many yet undiscovered spots need to be catalogged and laid out in terms of trip planning for the potential national and international visitors.
All of this sounds like a lot of work right? Yeah. A lot of work means = more jobs.

Would North Woods National park restrict certain use of the natural resources? = yes and no and I hope so. It might restrict polluting ways, it might improve infrastructure and access for other ways. It would also mean that as a unified area, when money is spent to support this park there won't be someone in the middle (on their private land) 'spoiling' the glorified idea of the pristine environment for the would be visitors.

blah blah blah.

Stan said:

If this was a response to my comment, I ask again: And aside from the recreational opportunities denied on the Quimby lands, what opportunities would a National Monument create that don't already exist in Baxter State Park and in the North Maine Woods?

Can you be specific?

And what wildlife management can improve on the biologists and scientists who work for the state of Maine, collegessand universities and conservation organizations?

The area is distressed now and the promise of new recreation is supposed to improve that? I'd guess it would actually worsen it as the working forest would probably be diminished even further and property values and condition of homes and camps deteriorate as de facto land use control shifts to distant bureaucrats with agendas far removed from the residents and traditions of the area.

I do support national park and monument designation where it has reasonable local support, serves a purpose which cannot otherwise be served, preserves something unique that cannot otherwise be preserved and comes with resources to assure the promises are met. None of those conditions exist in any proposed federalization of these lands.

Maine has a unique mix of locally inspired and controlled conservation and generous public access to private lands. It would be a big mistake to lose that.

Click to expand...

Stan said:

If this was a response to my comment, I ask again: And aside from the recreational opportunities denied on the Quimby lands, what opportunities would a National Monument create that don't already exist in Baxter State Park and in the North Maine Woods?

Can you be specific?

And what wildlife management can improve on the biologists and scientists who work for the state of Maine, collegessand universities and conservation organizations?

The area is distressed now and the promise of new recreation is supposed to improve that? I'd guess it would actually worsen it as the working forest would probably be diminished even further and property values and condition of homes and camps deteriorate as de facto land use control shifts to distant bureaucrats with agendas far removed from the residents and traditions of the area.

I do support national park and monument designation where it has reasonable local support, serves a purpose which cannot otherwise be served, preserves something unique that cannot otherwise be preserved and comes with resources to assure the promises are met. None of those conditions exist in any proposed federalization of these lands.

Maine has a unique mix of locally inspired and controlled conservation and generous public access to private lands. It would be a big mistake to lose that.

Click to expand...

peakbagger said:

I expect Roxanne has mellowed somewhat and really now is just desperate to establish a long term legacy to legitimize her move up to high society. That is probably one of the reasons that there appears to be no interest in appending these parcels to BSP, it will pull the spotlight off the generous donor even though the management goals are quite similar.

Click to expand...

Thank you for answering a question I have been wondering "Why not donate the parcel and fund directly to BSP?" (assuming BSP would/could accept them).

Brambor said:

... get the 'derps' out of the woods, have them clean their backyards, have them go prosper in envirotourism instead of food stamps, waxing about old days at the mill, shooting their guns and sharpening their crayons for their don't tread on me coloring books

Click to expand...

I wish you hadn't included this sentence. I agree wholeheartedly with your NP presentation (made me think of the book, "Tall Trees, Tough Men"), but not your characterization of the local people.

the characterization is not of ALL local people. and I think it's not a majority either. More like a vocal minority, detrimental to progress.

Tom_Murphy said:

I wish you hadn't included this sentence. I agree wholeheartedly with your NP presentation (made me think of the book, "Tall Trees, Tough Men"), but not your characterization of the local people.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how the "if you build it, they will come mentality" will work in Northern Maine. The Moosehorn , Lake Umbagog and Silvio Conte National Wildlife refuges sure haven't" packed them in" in rural Maine and NH. Plum Creek has gone to a lot of trouble to get permitted to do similar long term high end recreational development in the area surrounding Moosehead but with the exception of the traditional lakefront development on Roach Pond that predated the major effort, there hasn't been a lot of visible progress to date. The only real major benefit has been the transfer of a large amount of land to the AMC which is now covered by conservation easements. Assuming we are still talking about the current vastly scaled down Maine Woods National Park compared to the much larger prior proposed project, the Plum Creek lands are really too far West and basically inaccessible to the currently proposed national park except to those who are geographically challenged unless the much reviled private interstate proposal through this region is brought back to life.

So the questions comes down to, does the NP stamp inherently make people want to do the extra 2 hour drive versus Acadia ? Does the extra NP traffic to the Sherman Patten exit of I 95 replace the winter snowmachine traffic that will be displaced due to the closure of major routes in this area? Unlike the WMNF, most folks are not within easy driving range of southern NE population corridor so any decision by the target population means a three or four day weekend or a traditional vacation week. My contention is that given the other potential attractions within the same radius MWNP wont get the sustained traffic. Those inclined to want this experience just need to turn left one exit earlier and head to BSP. About the only improvement over BSP is that those with large class A motor homes equipped with a Chihuahua will be able to enter the MWNP .

Yeh. Well my response was not about the much scaled down proposal. The scaled down proposal won't work that way. It's a much smaller and comparatively uninteresting piece of land. However, there is a lot that could be done to make it attractive in its own microcosmic way.

To date , the billing of this proposal has (in my humble opinion) completely failed to "sell" the virtues of the opportunities. Given the fact there are far fewer "landmarks" one can't just say it will be great ...please visit.



What I would do is to completely crawl through the entire place , left and right, and based on the topography of subtle natural gems I would draft a new network of trails based on given activity and then propose a network of campsites combining people from these activities (bikers with hikers with canoers...) , then creat strings of 2 day, 5day 7day trip ideas, give them attractive names, utilize historical references too...

Campsites would be basic but all inclusive firewood starting with place to put your tend and ending with highest luxury in a few yurts.plum creek completely misses the mark by offering luxury high priced accommodations. That's not how you get the word out. You need masses and not asses. Especially if you want to attract international visitors and similar types of domestic visitors who come for the experience and not the pampering.

Yes for pampering they will rather go to Bar Harbor.

peakbagger said:

It would be interesting to see how the "if you build it, they will come mentality" will work in Northern Maine. The Moosehorn , Lake Umbagog and Silvio Conte National Wildlife refuges sure haven't" packed them in" in rural Maine and NH. Plum Creek has gone to a lot of trouble to get permitted to do similar long term high end recreational development in the area surrounding Moosehead but with the exception of the traditional lakefront development on Roach Pond that predated the major effort, there hasn't been a lot of visible progress to date. The only real major benefit has been the transfer of a large amount of land to the AMC which is now covered by conservation easements. Assuming we are still talking about the current vastly scaled down Maine Woods National Park compared to the much larger prior proposed project, the Plum Creek lands are really too far West and basically inaccessible to the currently proposed national park except to those who are geographically challenged unless the much reviled private interstate proposal through this region is brought back to life.

So the questions comes down to, does the NP stamp inherently make people want to do the extra 2 hour drive versus Acadia ? Does the extra NP traffic to the Sherman Patten exit of I 95 replace the winter snowmachine traffic that will be displaced due to the closure of major routes in this area? Unlike the WMNF, most folks are not within easy driving range of southern NE population corridor so any decision by the target population means a three or four day weekend or a traditional vacation week. My contention is that given the other potential attractions within the same radius MWNP wont get the sustained traffic. Those inclined to want this experience just need to turn left one exit earlier and head to BSP. About the only improvement over BSP is that those with large class A motor homes equipped with a Chihuahua will be able to enter the MWNP .

Click to expand...

Brambor, in my opinion you have made a very compelling case AGAINST federalization of these lands.

No way you're going to attract the business that Yellowstone and the Tetons do. I love both places; one model works in one place, another model works well in the other. And, without attracting the business that Yellowstone and the Tetons get, just how do you you expect the area to benefit economically? Those of us who don't need pampering also don't spend much money.

And crawling to new gems? ... hey, just keep it a secret and let's bushwhack.