WinterWarlock
Active member
I just saw this note from Leave No Trace....couldn't find much more on it, but wondered if anyone knew any more than this, or had opinions. ( I know - people here are too shy to share their opinions)
New National Park in Maine...
- Thread starter WinterWarlock
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Brambor
Well-known member
do it
I think that the impact of plum creek and overall population growth will result in diminishing returns from the nature up north. Therefore I say - do it. Make the national park, thus at least preserving that land forever. Maine residents get to go free, of course.
I think that the impact of plum creek and overall population growth will result in diminishing returns from the nature up north. Therefore I say - do it. Make the national park, thus at least preserving that land forever. Maine residents get to go free, of course.
Guthook
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 28
Jeez, not many replies to this one. Maybe you're right about people being shy with their opinions 
I'd love to hear more about this thing. I first heard about it when I was working at Little Lyford, but the extent of the information was just "some folks want to make a really big national park in northern maine." Several years later, that's still mostly all the information I have. Not that I've been looking too hard.
From a quick look at RESTORE's website, it sounds like there's a lot of opposition, a lot of pros and cons, and who knows how much momentum going for the project. I for one would like to see more eco-tourism in Maine. AMC's 100-Mile Wilderness and Maine Huts & Trails are definitely going in the right direction, but they're pretty small-scale. Their benefit to the local economy doesn't seem to be all that much, as far as I can see. Something big, like a national park, would definitely bring in a lot of cash flow and other benefits, but with some downsides as well.
I say "go for it" as well, but I'm open to the arguments against the movement.
I'd love to hear more about this thing. I first heard about it when I was working at Little Lyford, but the extent of the information was just "some folks want to make a really big national park in northern maine." Several years later, that's still mostly all the information I have. Not that I've been looking too hard.
From a quick look at RESTORE's website, it sounds like there's a lot of opposition, a lot of pros and cons, and who knows how much momentum going for the project. I for one would like to see more eco-tourism in Maine. AMC's 100-Mile Wilderness and Maine Huts & Trails are definitely going in the right direction, but they're pretty small-scale. Their benefit to the local economy doesn't seem to be all that much, as far as I can see. Something big, like a national park, would definitely bring in a lot of cash flow and other benefits, but with some downsides as well.
I say "go for it" as well, but I'm open to the arguments against the movement.
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
Most of the National Parks are in the West - makes sense to create a large one somewhere near the population centers of the Northeast where most of the people in this country live.
That site says the proposed NP is a 3.2 million acre reserve in the Moosehead/Katahdin region. As always, the "devil's in the details" - anyone got a link to the map for the propose NP/preserve?
That site says the proposed NP is a 3.2 million acre reserve in the Moosehead/Katahdin region. As always, the "devil's in the details" - anyone got a link to the map for the propose NP/preserve?
Guthook
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 28
I couldn't agree more about the devil in the details. I really do hope they work something out... and hopefully without stepping on too many toes.
This is a very basic link from the RESTORE website with an overview of the proposed area.
This is a much more detailed map in pdf form, also from their website.
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
Hoo boy. This one's the tar baby of Maine outdoor politics. There's a whole lotta history to be condensed for your common benefit when I have the time. And yup, some folks might be holding their tongues here . . .
Would this halt that development company that's trying to pave over the Moosehead (Plum Creek, I believe)?
If so, then I'd certainly support it. I'd rather it not be an NP because that brings a lot of traffic by default, but if it's the only way to protect the area...
If so, then I'd certainly support it. I'd rather it not be an NP because that brings a lot of traffic by default, but if it's the only way to protect the area...
IMHO Restore the North Woods is a small fringe organization that is very good at generating publicity but rarely contributes significantly to realistic discussion over the future of the Maine woods. Note that the map that was linked to, forgot to show the various towns and population centers in the area of the proposed national park. Barring the use of eminent domain to drive the population out of the area (used in the Shenadoahs and Smokies), the small towns in the areas would end up even more beholden to seasonal tourism. It would be a major bonanza to the landowners surrounded by park lands as they could create the North Conway's and Lincoln's of Maine
The majority of the area is multiple use forest land that is already mostly open to the public while allowing locals to earn a living. As noted on the map, Baxter State Park is not part of the proposed park, this is not by choice, there were attempts during the during the development of the national park system to make a maine woods national park and Baxter specifically set it up so that the park could not be turned into a national park.
Currently a majority of the access to the area is via private road systems that were built and are maintained for logging access, for anyone climbing the more remote peaks in this area, these roads are essential for access. Whats in it for the NPS to keep these open when the stated goal of the project is to create a wilderness preserve? Currently the LURC seems to do a pretty good job at limiting development to areas where there is already impact while seriously limiting development on areas that currently have no impact.
For people who have actually been up there and spent any length of time, the area is quite wild and the logging has contributed to the diversity of habitats. There have been many attempts at coming up with the "spotted owl of the east" and to date most of the candidates have failed the test as they tend to thrive on the young regenerating forest stands created by logging. Granted a freshly cut stand of timber is ugly for a few years just like the scene of a forest fire, but give it a few years and these areas tend to be very attractive to wildlife.
The majority of the area is multiple use forest land that is already mostly open to the public while allowing locals to earn a living. As noted on the map, Baxter State Park is not part of the proposed park, this is not by choice, there were attempts during the during the development of the national park system to make a maine woods national park and Baxter specifically set it up so that the park could not be turned into a national park.
Currently a majority of the access to the area is via private road systems that were built and are maintained for logging access, for anyone climbing the more remote peaks in this area, these roads are essential for access. Whats in it for the NPS to keep these open when the stated goal of the project is to create a wilderness preserve? Currently the LURC seems to do a pretty good job at limiting development to areas where there is already impact while seriously limiting development on areas that currently have no impact.
For people who have actually been up there and spent any length of time, the area is quite wild and the logging has contributed to the diversity of habitats. There have been many attempts at coming up with the "spotted owl of the east" and to date most of the candidates have failed the test as they tend to thrive on the young regenerating forest stands created by logging. Granted a freshly cut stand of timber is ugly for a few years just like the scene of a forest fire, but give it a few years and these areas tend to be very attractive to wildlife.
audrey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,933
- Reaction score
- 168
What about the argument that fragmented forests contribute to the flourishing of the brown-headed cowbird, which lays its eggs in the nests of songbirds, thereby helping cause a decline in their numbers? Isn't that an issue in Maine?
roadtripper
Well-known member
Why I like upstate Maine just the way it is:
~ You can still get seriously lost on the dirt roads. Some areas are so poorly mapped that you have no idea of the adventure that is often ahead of you. The DeLorme Atlas has so many errors/omissions for Maine and I like it that way.
~ You can drive up on a Saturday afternoon on a holiday weekend and STILL find a campsite open at many campgrounds. Try doing that in MA, VT or NH. This allows for a level of spontaneity (i.e. deciding Saturday morning that you'd like to go camp somewhere for the night) that is much tougher to find in other New England states.
~ You can backpack for days at a time and not see anybody
~ You can rediscover waterfalls, swimming holes etc. that see only a few visitors per year.
~ There are hundreds of local FREE spots that allow/tolerate roadside camping.
~ Even the best mountains are thinly crowded
~ many average-income people can still afford a small cabin or cottage up there.
~ There are no malls or significant shopping centers/plazas.
~ food & lodging is generally very cheap
Any thoughts on why this area couldn't become a national forest? The designation "national park" automatically quadruples visitorship in about 5-10 years. I'd vote national park over any idea Plum Creek has, though.
~ You can still get seriously lost on the dirt roads. Some areas are so poorly mapped that you have no idea of the adventure that is often ahead of you. The DeLorme Atlas has so many errors/omissions for Maine and I like it that way.
~ You can drive up on a Saturday afternoon on a holiday weekend and STILL find a campsite open at many campgrounds. Try doing that in MA, VT or NH. This allows for a level of spontaneity (i.e. deciding Saturday morning that you'd like to go camp somewhere for the night) that is much tougher to find in other New England states.
~ You can backpack for days at a time and not see anybody
~ You can rediscover waterfalls, swimming holes etc. that see only a few visitors per year.
~ There are hundreds of local FREE spots that allow/tolerate roadside camping.
~ Even the best mountains are thinly crowded
~ many average-income people can still afford a small cabin or cottage up there.
~ There are no malls or significant shopping centers/plazas.
~ food & lodging is generally very cheap
Any thoughts on why this area couldn't become a national forest? The designation "national park" automatically quadruples visitorship in about 5-10 years. I'd vote national park over any idea Plum Creek has, though.
Last edited:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
This is a very old idea that appears periodically. A similar thing was proposed for the Northeast Kingdom in VT.
I agree with PB that I prefer things the way they are. And I'm not sure quite how this idea would be implemented.
For Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mtn NPs, the state was required to buy the land and evict the residents and there are still hard feelings to this day. The Federal government was to build a park infrastructure which became a jobs program during the Depression although there are still lawsuits over a road near Fontana Dam that hasn't been built yet 80 years later. Someone from ME may have a better handle on this but I doubt that there is the money or political will in ME to do this, and similarly the Feds don't have enough money to maintain the parks they already have.
Finally I'm not sure what the desired result is. A developed park similar to Shenandoah is probably impossible due to financial and environmental constraints. Buying the land, ending logging, and closing the roads to create a natural preserve with no amenities would be much easier and might be supported by those who wanted the Wilderness Trail bridge removed, but would hurt the local economy.
I agree with PB that I prefer things the way they are. And I'm not sure quite how this idea would be implemented.
For Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mtn NPs, the state was required to buy the land and evict the residents and there are still hard feelings to this day. The Federal government was to build a park infrastructure which became a jobs program during the Depression although there are still lawsuits over a road near Fontana Dam that hasn't been built yet 80 years later. Someone from ME may have a better handle on this but I doubt that there is the money or political will in ME to do this, and similarly the Feds don't have enough money to maintain the parks they already have.
Finally I'm not sure what the desired result is. A developed park similar to Shenandoah is probably impossible due to financial and environmental constraints. Buying the land, ending logging, and closing the roads to create a natural preserve with no amenities would be much easier and might be supported by those who wanted the Wilderness Trail bridge removed, but would hurt the local economy.
spencer
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 194
This is a great example of why real news outlets hate the blogosphere. If you don't know what I mean, please do some reading about Maine and national park proposals before replying.
Stan
Well-known member
myup ... pfor da ptym bean, ennyway ...
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. However, I've never found the point of view of "if only you poor peons knew half as much as insiders like me you'd come to the same conclusion as I" in any way persuasive.
All things being equal - it is in the public's best interests to have National Parks within a reasonable distance, and this will become increasing apparent as the cost of energy used for transportation continues to increase, and the disposal income continues to descrease.
That doesn't mean that a National Park of any substantial size would ever occur in New England in the near future, especially given the extremely polarized political climate we now live in. However, nothing ever comes to fruition without being dreamed first.
spencer
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 194
I'll clarify for those who don't know what I mean and didn't do any reading before replying.
I did not express my opinion on the matter. I'm merely pointing out that this is not a novel concept and before folks reinvent the wheel I suggest doing some googling so you can come to your own opinion based on the 100 or so years of history of such proposals.
There are not currently any publicly announced, official (i.e. governmental) projects in the works to create a new National Park in Maine. There are, however, many people and groups who talk about it in hopes there will one day be enough support to initiate such a project.
I did not express my opinion on the matter. I'm merely pointing out that this is not a novel concept and before folks reinvent the wheel I suggest doing some googling so you can come to your own opinion based on the 100 or so years of history of such proposals.
There are not currently any publicly announced, official (i.e. governmental) projects in the works to create a new National Park in Maine. There are, however, many people and groups who talk about it in hopes there will one day be enough support to initiate such a project.
The proposal for a North Woods National Park has been around for years (decades). Nothing new. At least now RESTORE has established an office in Maine. For a long time, their only address was suburban Boston.
I think that a national forest could be a better solution for the area than a national park. National forest is the land of many uses, so it would allow for the continuation of the historical uses, including timber, recreation, snowmobile, hunting, etc.
But, ever since Percival Baxter, there has been significant distrust of anything to do with the federal government in Maine. So, I suspect that a national forest isn't going happen, and neither is a national park up there.
I think that a national forest could be a better solution for the area than a national park. National forest is the land of many uses, so it would allow for the continuation of the historical uses, including timber, recreation, snowmobile, hunting, etc.
But, ever since Percival Baxter, there has been significant distrust of anything to do with the federal government in Maine. So, I suspect that a national forest isn't going happen, and neither is a national park up there.
Based on following this idea for the past 20 years, my conclusion is that a new National Park has an extremely slight chance of being created. Not zero chance, but extremely small. No national park will be created over the objections of the people who live there.
Just because Maine doesnt have a Maine woods national park, there are a couple of national wildlife refuges that have very smiliar characteristics (but smaller). The Lake Umbagog national wildlife refuge has been slowly expanding to include large amounts of the watershed and Moosehorn has also been expanding over the years. Throw in the large blocks of lands covered with development easements around the state and there is a whole lot of land already protected, just not to the extent that some folks would envision.
By the way the AT in Maine is officially a National Park so Maine already has two national parks
By the way the AT in Maine is officially a National Park so Maine already has two national parks
Guthook
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 28
The only one of the Ken Burns NP documentary episodes I saw was the one where the Alaskans went apesh*t over Jimmy Carter creating a bunch of national parks up there. I'm not saying that's going to happen in Maine, but apparently it can be done. Or at least it could in 1980.
Anyway, does anyone know why they're proposing a National Park instead of a National Forest? I agree with Peaks that a Forest sounds like a more realistic and less antagonistic approach.
