Maine Development

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Here's a thought. Try contacting whatever agency does environmental reviews in Maine, and ask them if they can divulge information on the number of subdivisions and other development projects that occur in Maine on a yearly basis. Maybe you could even ask for a small-scale map, for a visual of what land is being lost each year. Maybe they could tally up the total acreage that is lost to development. In New Hampshire it's huge, and it's threatening to get up into the Great North Woods pretty soon. Hopefully the state would be willing to let this information out - it should be public knowledge anyhow, but not summarized for people to look at. This could be a tool you can use to try to convince legislators, town councils, and so forth, who might be involved in zoning ordinances, that these things are not a good idea.

And here's another thought - whoever does not like this type of development should not himself or herself ever aspire to build a dream home in the mountains. Buy one that's already there, or drive there on the weekends from town.

I'm all for hunting and fishing and sustainable, ecosystem-based forestry, but development? Grrrr.....and that place was my backyard for 28 years.
 
Come senators, congressmen please heed the call . . .

I hate to suggest it, but isn't this the reason that some are in favor of a National Forest in Maine? Or worse yet a National Park?

Was is realistic to think that the economic and demographic conditions that have allowed the Maine forests to be what they are today will remain unchanged indefinitely?
 
I hate to suggest it, but isn't this the reason that some are in favor of a National Forest in Maine? Or worse yet a National Park?

I think if you look at those opposed to the National Park (me being one of them) it isn't preservation that is being opposed, it's *national* that's being opposed. There actually are other alternatives besides a National Park that many people are more open to.

Was is realistic to think that the economic and demographic conditions that have allowed the Maine forests to be what they are today will remain unchanged indefinitely?

No it isn't, but I believe the idea is to have some control over the development so we don't "pave paradise, put up a parking lot...."
:)
 
twigeater said:
...There actually are other alternatives besides a National Park that many people are more open to.
It comes down to money Twig. No one's got that kind of cash except the Feds and Roxanne Quimby :( Seems like no native Mainers or groups - least wise the state - can put up any real $$. All I hear is taxes are too high already. The Nature Conservancy has done a good bit with the Saint John's watershed but now they have their own problems.

For years people have been in denial on this pont, believing that hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, camping, etc. on the paper companies' land would last forever. Guess what - the paper companies don't give a s***t about traditional uses and the "old" way of life. They want to cash out.

Time is running out. In 20 years the best will be gone. If any of these "alternatives besides a National Park" are viable, I wish they would come alive soon.

You have two models in the north east that from my perspective are reasonably successful, though hardly perfect: The NY State owned and administerd Adirondaks and the USFS Whites and Greens. Too late for the New York model in Maine with such a low tax base, so look at the NH or VT model long and hard and maybe swallow some nativist pride.

Remember (from the history books) the outcry (from private industray and politicians alike) in the early 20th century when the USFS and the Whites came in to being. IT was a stretch (based on the commerce clause of the US constitution with the specious argument the the rivers of NH somehow were part of interstate commerce) that it even passed constitutional muster.

Think what the Whites or Greens would be like today without the USFS running the place - say if it had been left in the hands of the timber industry (think condominiums, resorts, etc. everywhere), then translate that to Maine 20 years from now.

It's time to get involved.
Rg
 
And if Quimby wants to give her land to someone, better the State or Baxter Park than the federal gov't. Or she could create a Quimby State Park with her own little set of rules.

The feds don't have the funding for a National Park in Maine, so it isn't really an option at this moment anyway. It isn't like the feds have offered something and we've rejected it. (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong)

It's time to get involved.

I don't know what you mean by that, but I consider myself involved as much as my pocketbook and my mouth can be.
:)
 
twigeater said:
I don't know what you mean by that, but I consider myself involved as much as my pocketbook and my mouth can be.
:)
I'm on your side Twigeater. But being a NY resident I don't get much say. But I do think (as is the case with the ANWR for example) that eventually these isues transcend political boundaries, whether it's the rain forest in Brazil, the north woods in Maine, or my own back yard.

And you're right, the Feds haven't offered a solution. But then, when many of Maine's politicians are against the idea on principal, why should they bother. It would take both senators, the US congressman, the state legislature and governor all working together to get something done. I fear that is not very likely any time soon enough to make a difference.

Maybe TNC's is the right approach. If Mainers like private property vs. state or federal owned land, then look to the foundations and Quimbys. Not to say we should not get involved in the political process as well. I guess I'm saying it will take both a public and private effort for there to be real hope.

Rg
 
It is true that part of the reason the feds won't look at Maine is because the people of Maine and our congressional delegation are against it.
One of my objections to any national designation is the hoards I imagine it will bring (like at Acadia)...so according to some, those are our choices - we can have hoards of people in the woods or hoards of condos - I don't believe either, I believe we can do better.

This is one way to have a say...

http://www.mainewoodscoalition.com/index.html

or somewhat of a say anyway, anyone is allowed to be a member and/or donate money, but only landowners in the affected counties can vote.

I guess I'm saying it will take both a public and private effort for there to be real hope.

I agree! :)
 
There is plenty of competition to travel at least five hours (from Boston to Moosehead Lake) and the market for the Moosehead Lake region is very limited. Plum Creek can serve part of that market and even give it a slight boost but those are very limited numbers and they represent a very long term development. Much of that development will happen anyway. Already the AMC is probably stimulating it unwittingly but I don't think it is creating a development boom.

In my opinion it would be preferable to have a sound long term development plan than to rely on ad hoc development. A good plan can protect sensitive areas, can concentrate development rather than create a new sprawl, can preserve what is appealing about the region and can preserve existing multi-use of timber and recreation. There must be a rural version of sustainable development principles that could be the framework for a Plum Creek plan.

My reaction is to seek more information and to keep an open mind. A sound long term plan with compensating benefits is better than no plan at all.
 
In my opinion it would be preferable to have a sound long term development plan than to rely on ad hoc development. A good plan can protect sensitive areas, can concentrate development rather than create a new sprawl, can preserve what is appealing about the region and can preserve existing multi-use of timber and recreation.

I agree - this may be the kick that LURC needs to do just that.
 
Don't panic yet

Remember Larry McDougal (I think that was his name) of the Arkansas Whitewater Real Estate Corp? He went up to Campobello I. (New Brunswick), not all that far from BSU, in the '80s and bought a big chunk of land with the idea that he'd develop a resort. Only problem was that not all that many people wanted to vacation on a cold, foggy island off the Maine coast, and most of Campobello is still for sale. All of Casco Bay I. is for sale ($4.5M US), and no takers yet. Maine is different, I know, and that's not to say long term planning is not in order. But I think there's time if it starts now.
 
Well I like thrashing around in the woods as much as the next guy, but I don't expect Plum Creek Timber Company to make financial sacrifices on my account. I support their right to do what ever they want with their own property. As I would expect them to respect my property rights (not that I have much property). I sure hope that I can still get Big and Little Spencer though.
 
RoySwkr said:
Hey PB,

Maybe you can get a 5-acre lot right at the summit of Baker Mtn
Actually Roy, the AMC got that piece already.

On a more serious note, the group I like is NFA: the Northern Forest Alliance.

Here's a map that show critical areas they are working to protect in the North East:

wildlandmap.jpg


Note that they work in the 4 states which incudes the "northern forest". Some areas in Maine, such as #8 (St. John's River watershed) and 9 ("Greater" Baxter) have some real protection thanks to TNC and others. Others (like #7, Rangeley area) are not so good. They skip Moosehead Lake, I assume since it is rather accessible (also because they obviously can't do everything).

Check out their site: Northern Forest Alliance for more details. And yes, give them some money. I like the targeted approach they have and I like their goals:

The Alliance's priorities are threefold:

1. To conserve Wildlands in the Northern Forest to help protect the forest's ecological integrity,and support its recreational opportunities and the sustainability of its timber production.

2. To encourage well managed private forests to support the forest-based economy, including high-value timber products, recreation tourism, and the jobs these industries support.

3. To build strong, diverse, locally-based economies that support vibrant communities throughout the Northern Forest.
#2 and #3 are important and often overlooked.

Pb
 
While much of the plan is a thinly veiled attempt to get Maine citizens to actually applaud this development, this sort of long-term thinking is crucial for our changing natural resource-based economy.

A lot of thought has gone into this plan and while none of us want to see First Roach Pond get subdivided, something has to give to be able to "afford" 17 million acres of forest land (well, maybe now 16 million).

If you don't like it, stop having kids and expecting perpetual growth out of our economic models.

I for one will have kids with lower consumption rates and will keep working on what I do best: learning how to increase our forest productivity and efficiency.

spencer
 
Another org besides Northern Forest Alliance is the Maine Forest Society (http://www.fsmaine.org/) -- I don't have much experience with either one but in NH we have SPNHF and it is arguably the organization which has made the most difference in pursuing protected lands in our state.

IMHO if you are concerned about development you need to put up ($$$ or time/energy) or shut up.
 
Difficult changes

It's difficult to assess what the correct strategy should be. I own a cabin on leased land, so I have a financial interest in this, as well as being interested from the general 'access availability' point of view.

While I agree that land owners need to be able to do what they want, it's difficult to watch as large-scale development becomes a likelihood. Also, other land owners who have the good intent of making their land into "park" areas, also have their own agendas that change the traditional access and usage of the area.

Change is inevitable, but should be managed, if possible, in the best interest of all. Gov. Baldacci set up a task force in November 2004 to advise on this, the Task Force on Traditional Uses and Public Access to Land in Maine. The task force was supposed to issue a mid-point report in February. I don't know what was in the report, but have requested a copy.
 
Top