A debate: How to grow Maine's economy? (Augusta: schools, vs.)

[broadbill]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

In 1980 Maine was still 95% privately owned. Today we are down to 85%. The environmental industry wails that we are losing our forests. They lie. In 1940 Maine had 6,250,000 acres of pasture and cultivated land. Today we have just over a million. In my lifetime Maine has gained an average of 77,000 acres a year of forest. Yes, GAINED. Maine is one of only two states in the nation losing population.

First, I'd really like a citation/source of this information.

Second: Just because there was an decrease in pasture/cultivated land from 1940 to today doesn't mean that land automatically converted back to forest. Wouldn't you classify this old pasture/cultivated land as "idle"? Even with some forest stewardship/tree planting (and how much old pasture/cultivated land actually get any sort of stewardship?) it will be many years before someone could look at it and classify it as forested land.

I guess my point is that you could still have a decrease in pasture/cultivated land and still be losing forest. Its all how you classify the land. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an idle land classification in your study (which is why I asked for the source). Thanks.

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by Maine Writer

The Washington County Food Alliance is a group of farmers, food producers and consumers working together to build agricultural infrastructure in the county. We targeted two "you're killing us" laws last week while in the Hall of Flags. Phone calls and letters are helpful but the here we are, face-to-face approach got the legislature's attention. We asked for permission to have a one page info sheet distributed to desks to be waiting for them Thursday morning. The ag committee will look at one of the laws, chicken processing, closely. Something obviously has to change but it probably won't be a quick fix. It's a minor change in the way the law is written. That change will create three or four jobs on one farm. The second law regarding small businesses bottling juices can be easily corrected. We expect to see the change next year. That will allow a few small businesses to expand their products. I don't remember how many jobs it will create.

The Alliance is contracting with a local person for distribution. One project he's taking on in three weeks will put $650 into the local economy rather than in UPS's pocket.

One farm is contracting with the UMaine system to provide fresh vegetables to a university campus for the 10/11 school year.

We're backing a state inspected slaughter house in Alexander. The business would open without us but the support we're lending is helping the process. It will create seven new jobs in the slaughter house.

Here's an idea: Why don't we put more emphasis on growing these Alliances from smaller ones to bigger ones? IMHO, if Augusta spent more time working with these types of businesses vs. trying to divide the state in half, and other futile nonsense like spending money on programs that try to tell me what to feed my kids so they won't be fat, I think it would be a lot more productive.

Even with consolidation, there are lots and lots of schools in Maine who still have to feed kids lunch every day. Other venues such as nursing homes and hospitals (or anywhere with food services for that matter) stand the potential to benefit from this. What better way to provide jobs?

Considering the increase in food pantry usage, there is a "demand" for food up here.

It may not sound like a lot, but at least it would be a start and not the same old rehashing of things already proven not to work.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by brubaker

Environmental groups are opposed to public ownership of / access to lands?
Mmmm, okay.

Well the land is currently privately owned and publically accessible.

So these groups want to do what?

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by brubaker

...
Wow, really?
Where have you observed this?
5% of market value? That's crazy.

I have witnessed it in California [when land was taken form my grandfather].

And I witnessed it in Connecticut [when the base I was stationed at wanted to grow it's footprint].

[Northern Maine Land Man]

The 77,000 acre per year increase in Maine forests over the last seven decades or so is well documented by the Maine Forest Service and the Maine Department of Agriculture. The few acres that become a modern residential subdivision do not begin to offset the thousands of empty cellar holes where happy families lived in modest homes in the past. There is no way to refute the facts that Maine is losing population and gaining forest.

If you don't mow a field you will have trees growing there the very next year. They will be waist to shoulder high the first year and before long you won't be able to see across that former field. My example of the airport in Kingman is true. It has been harvested twice since 1930. The example I use in testimony before the legislature is a hardwood ridge with a stone wall running up through mature rock maple, beech and oak. I tell them that wall was not built during the nigh by elves. It was built by our grandfathers and their fathers when that land was cultivated or pasture.

Just ask what it costs Bangor Hydro or Central Maine Power each year to prevent forests under their power lines. Forests just happen in Maine through natural reseeding.

[Submariner]

I have lived in drought-prone areas on the nation before where re-planting was popular. If you cut down the forest, you needed to re-plant to get trees to grow once again.

Maine is not drought-prone.

The guy that I bought our land from did a clear cut. We have deep ruts everywhere left over from his bulldozers and heavy equipment. Every tree was removed or else knocked down and pressed into the soil to help the heavy equipment gain traction. When he was done, no tree was left standing.

Ten years later, today, out of 150 acres I can only think of one location where the trees have not grown back yet. It is a spot of maybe 1/4 acre. One quarter of an acre out of 150 acres is a fairly small percentage.

Brush-hogs are very popular here, over-sized lawnmower decks mounted on a tractor that swings chain-flails to cut down saplings up to 3+ inches in diameter. If you have an open field that you want to keep as an open field, then you must brush-hog it every couple years to knock down the saplings.

Otherwise the forest will reclaim the land in a few years.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

I bush hog snowmobile trails for the local snowmobile club. Just picture the reaction when there are lights and sirens ion your neighborhood. Everybody comes out to look. Animals do that when a bush hog is coming. They wonder what is making all that racket and step into the trail to look. Then they run off until I pass.

[broadbill]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

The 77,000 acre per year increase in Maine forests over the last seven decades or so is well documented by the Maine Forest Service and the Maine Department of Agriculture. The few acres that become a modern residential subdivision do not begin to offset the thousands of empty cellar holes where happy families lived in modest homes in the past. There is no way to refute the facts that Maine is losing population and gaining forest.

If you don't mow a field you will have trees growing there the very next year. They will be waist to shoulder high the first year and before long you won't be able to see across that former field. My example of the airport in Kingman is true. It has been harvested twice since 1930. The example I use in testimony before the legislature is a hardwood ridge with a stone wall running up through mature rock maple, beech and oak. I tell them that wall was not built during the nigh by elves. It was built by our grandfathers and their fathers when that land was cultivated or pasture.

Just ask what it costs Bangor Hydro or Central Maine Power each year to prevent forests under their power lines. Forests just happen in Maine through natural reseeding.

You missed my point. I'm well-aware that trees grow back very quickly if the land sits idle. What I was asking in these studies you cite, how they classify land that has not been farmed/cleaned off recently and now has 5' saplings growing all over it? i.e. do they automatically consider land forest, or is there an "idle land" classification ??

The reason I ask is because you claim that there is an increase in forest land land in Maine from 1940 to present, but you base that conclusion that the fact that decrease in farm land in that period (which I'm not disputing).

Why not just directly measure the total acres of land that has trees on it? I'm sure the Maine Forest Service would have such a number...


I could have looked for myself had you provided the source of the information you are quoting

[wordsmith680]

In any less populous area there is a struggle between development, resource exploitation and environmental concerns. Those that came to enjoy the difference of undeveloped vs industrial metro land still need to be cognizant of the need to utilize resources and development in a responsible way. One problem that I see is market driven pressures that rewards short term plans vs a longer focus. I did chuckle when the paper mill put up esthetically pretty signs proclaiming "Aspen regeneration". The point is that aspen will be the first to reforest, but the maple, white pine and oak in particular will not be back anytime soon, especially when they can clearcut again in about 25 years. Northern Wisconsin has a reservation containing a forest managed only based on species maturity an enhancement unrelated to market price. It is great for diversity and beauty now and I would say that longer term the timber will be more valuable.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by broadbill

You missed my point. I'm well-aware that trees grow back very quickly if the land sits idle. What I was asking in these studies you cite, how they classify land that has not been farmed/cleaned off recently and now has 5' saplings growing all over it? i.e. do they automatically consider land forest, or is there an "idle land" classification ??

The reason I ask is because you claim that there is an increase in forest land land in Maine from 1940 to present, but you base that conclusion that the fact that decrease in farm land in that period (which I'm not disputing).

Why not just directly measure the total acres of land that has trees on it? I'm sure the Maine Forest Service would have such a number...


I could have looked for myself had you provided the source of the information you are quoting

The same thing he described has been happening in Vermont as well: farms stop working, and the land is taken back by forests. Fields I remember being working farms as a child are now dense forests. It really doesn't take long for forests to take over. Same thing is happening in Maine, and in fact, throughout Northern New England: agriculture is declining throughout New England. There is more forest now than 100 years ago in every state of NNE.

BTW: 5 foot saplings are forest. There's different successions in forests. Young forests after either a fire or clearcut, etc., all the way up to mature forests. Oddly enough, the younger forests support more wildlife.

Here's an older article on the subject I found, from the environmentalists' point of view primarily but it illustrates exactly what NMLM has been saying about the forests: http://forests.org/archive/america/amforrec.htm (broken link)