Back to the National Park Discussion (Strong: how much, air quality, land)

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

Just for clarification, the proposal is for a national park, and not a national forest, correct? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that the two are similar, but not the same.

As far as I can tell, other than a very small part of the White Mountain National Forest (just about all of it is in N.H.), Maine has no national forest.

Not trying to upset anyone - just trying to understand.

I'm also wondering why some/all of the land in question couldn't be added to Baxter State Park, so that the land would be under state control.

Last thing ... I was looking for some kind of data on the economic impact (Public Use Data, Visitor Spending, and Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending) a national park has on the surrounding area. The most recent publication I could find is this: Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation, 2011.

The proposal is for 150,000 acres, half of which would be NP and the other half National Recreation Area. The question remains, what would the (non-speculative) economic impact be WITH the park and what will the (non-speculative) economic impact be WITHOUT the park?

The danger here may be in the details. A toe in the door to the 1990's proposal for a 3 million acre park. Don't know, but some just can't leave politics out of it and simply look at regional economics.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

If you take land out of tree growth and it has been in since 1973 or so, the most the state can take is 30% of the value of the land taken out on the day it is taken out.

Say you own a 40 acre lot on a nice salmon lake and it has been in tree growth for a long time under a few different owners. The new owner wants to take out a one acre lot on the lake to build a camp. Say a lake lot on that lake is worth $150,000. 30% of that is $45,000. That's what you pay to take that acre out of tree growth. That is a worst case scenario. Depending on who assesses the property the payment could go to a town. Some towns just love this.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

Just for clarification, the proposal is for a national park, and not a national forest, correct? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that the two are similar, but not the same.

As far as I can tell, other than a very small part of the White Mountain National Forest (just about all of it is in N.H.), Maine has no national forest.

Not trying to upset anyone - just trying to understand.

I'm also wondering why some/all of the land in question couldn't be added to Baxter State Park, so that the land would be under state control.

Last thing ... I was looking for some kind of data on the economic impact (Public Use Data, Visitor Spending, and Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending) a national park has on the surrounding area. The most recent publication I could find is this: Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation, 2011.

National park=preservationist approach to management, that is, no management, the place is run like museum for tourists and more tightly regulated than a national forest.

National forest=conservationist approach to management, where there is multiple use management, including timber harvests, wilderness areas, various recreational uses including hunting.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

In the 1800s, the Northeast was virtually denuded for lumber and firewood. Old historical societies have photos showing vast areas with no trees. The national forest system was founded for two reasons, to assure a continuing supply of lumber and timbers and to create dams to harness water power. That's it. No walking trails, interpretive signs about tree species and no trails. There are supposed to be roads to harvest timber on a periodic basis.

Our national forests have been taken over by preservationists who would rather a tree die of natural causes and rot on the forest floor than to be used as the law intended.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Maineborzoi, you really ought to send your 4/12 morning post to all Maine newspapers as a letter to the editor or OP-Ed.

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by Maineac

The proposal is for 150,000 acres, half of which would be NP and the other half National Recreation Area. The question remains, what would the (non-speculative) economic impact be WITH the park and what will the (non-speculative) economic impact be WITHOUT the park?

The danger here may be in the details. A toe in the door to the 1990's proposal for a 3 million acre park. Don't know, but some just can't leave politics out of it and simply look at regional economics.

Thank you for this. I didn't know that half of the land was being proposed for a National Recreation Area.

So, they are talking about a National Park and a National Recreation Area, but not a National Forest. All three are different enough so that to mix National Forests into this discussion has the potential of muddying the waters.

I found a list of the 12 National Parks that also have National Recreation Areas: National Recreation Areas that are part of the National Park System . Of the 12, I've been to two: the Golden Gate NRA and the Lake Mead NRA. I thought both were terrific.

[maineborzoi]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

Maineborzoi, you really ought to send your 4/12 morning post to all Maine newspapers as a letter to the editor or OP-Ed.

Why Thank you! ( please give me an idea who they are . Only one I know of is the one out of Bangor ...

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Portland Press Herald
Lewiston Sun Journal
Bangor Daily News
Calais Advertiser
Lincoln News

You can get the addresses on line quicker than I can type them. Your name will be new to them and they like letters from rural Maine.

[maineborzoi]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

Portland Press Herald
Lewiston Sun Journal
Bangor Daily News
Calais Advertiser
Lincoln News

You can get the addresses on line quicker than I can type them. Your name will be new to them and they like letters from rural Maine.

Thank you !

[Kracer]

Originally Posted by Maineac

Independent economic impact study and some answers rather than political rhetoric. GNN put up "No Trespassing without Paying Me" signs decades ago with collection gates (Maine Northwoods Assn.), so that argument doesn't fly. "We have taken such good care . . ." bull. The out of State corporate interests were only interested in the bottom line, and would clearcut and pave if there was a buck in it for them. Gray birch, fir thickets, popple and alder thickets. Any "planting" done by the paper companies was either mandated ("overregulating" them) or done for self-promotion photo op purposes. Had "we" the private landowners of Maine taken such good care of it, there'd still be one or two King Pine left. There isn't. The pulp and paper industry damaged nearly every single river in Maine, some with toxins that may take centuries to shake off. Others got killed off with something as benign as the annual log drive. Or the sawmills that surrounded Grahm Lake and the resulting oxygen depletion from anaerobic activity. Anything for a buck. That's just the way it was. That stinkin' "environmental industry" should be lauded for helping to keep big, deep pockets from poisoning us all just to save or make a buck.

"Independant economic impact" is rhetoric in a different package.
Your Harvard economics guru just might disagree with my Harvard economics guru.

Point being, citing a 'study' is as good as rhetoric, but more dishonest.

Who would trust the feds with any responsibility since regulations bypass the people's representatives and are born of political agendas. The inefficiency is legendary and somehow despite the publicity, the feds are ahmstrung when it comes to addressing the colossal waste. Just what Maine needs!

To constantly cry about 'flatlanders' coming in and offering unwanted advice, giving total control and ownership of state land to the federal government is to be inconsistent with prejudice.

Environmental protection isn't an all or nothing proposition. So it isn't a choice between God and the devil.

No feds, does not equate to, no protection. Times have changed since the days when rivers ran in colors like a box of crayola crayons. Intelligent application of regs and a motivated private industry just might be a better choice. The feds made a political statement with many of their parks during the last government shutdown. Think they won't hold Maine hostage to forward some aspect of their political driven agenda?

Feds are attempting to control barbeque grills, woodstoves and fireplaces. what's next?