Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be a revolt. You won't see it in your lifetime. It is unnecessary. The thing is, so is runaway development of wilderness areas, which some profess to espouse with such vigor. There's gotta be a balance, and the Sierra Club offers nothing to the State of Maine. All this land comes out of the tax base, and the only impact it will have will be on the people of Maine, who will pay for it in increased taxation, increased cost of road maintenance to handle the volume of traffic (if any), etc., with nothing coming back from the National Park Service. Nope. Not in your lifetime.
What about a compromise??? How about the North Maine Woods NATIONAL FOREST??? There could still be a limited amount of timber extraction (national forests are not as strictly protected as national parks are), alongside increased revenue from tourism. How would people in Maine feel about a NATIONAL FOREST instead?
Are you aware the Sierra Club aims to ban logging in national forests? They're doing it incrementally, getting areas declared "wilderness," suing to stop timber sales, etc. They've gotten tens of thousands of acres declared wilderness in Vermont's national forest and thereby made off limits. Which is insane, in many of those areas, I've come across old stone walls, cellar holes, overgrown apple orchards, rusty fences, etc. Vermont like Maine has been cut, used for farmland, then returned to forest...and ironically, some of the rarest trees (true old growth, and some rare large American chestnuts that survived the blight, some butternuts still alive, etc.), that might actually be good candidates for protection, are not in those wilderness areas (but are protected nonetheless because they're appreciated).
Maine would gain nothing and lose a lot (notably, taxes, the ability for people to actually live in some of the remote areas, the ability to control their own land, etc.). Right now the Northern Maine woods is by and large open to anyone to hunt, etc., and is available for timber use.
What about a compromise??? How about the North Maine Woods NATIONAL FOREST??? There could still be a limited amount of timber extraction (national forests are not as strictly protected as national parks are), alongside increased revenue from tourism. How would people in Maine feel about a NATIONAL FOREST instead?
How much wood would taken out of use? How many tons are there in "a limited amount" of wood? How many jobs would be lost? What would the people out of work do for a living? Where would the equipment used to harvest and process the wood be sold? Who would buy it? Which mill(s) would close because there isn't enough wood?
What's wrong with leaving it alone and not manipulating with people's lives?
How much wood would taken out of use? How many tons are there in "a limited amount" of wood? How many jobs would be lost? What would the people out of work do for a living? Where would the equipment used to harvest and process the wood be sold? Who would buy it? Which mill(s) would close because there isn't enough wood?
What's wrong with leaving it alone and not manipulating with people's lives?
All very good questions IMHO. Apparently, we would rather have humans go extinct than to manage renewable resources effectively and provide jobs - much like what's been done for many years. Oh well, there's always welfare after all.
Instead of going after irresponsible wood lot owners, we "fix" it by shutting it off to traditional uses. I suppose that once we've saved enough trees to cause overgrowth, then we can add some "gubmint" jobs to help thin them out.
Honestly, I think that well-meaning people who want to save the world, ought to be required to walk a mile in the shoes of anyone who makes their living in the industry before they even remotely begin to open their mouths.
They also ought to ask themselves how this state managed to operate so many mills for so many years before a myriad of issues (besides clearcutting) started closing them.
I live in the north, there are no jobs now. Make the land a park and there'll be even less jobs. Let these Sierra people give up the land and jobs around their homes instead of infringing on others lives.
What about a compromise??? How about the North Maine Woods NATIONAL FOREST??? There could still be a limited amount of timber extraction (national forests are not as strictly protected as national parks are), alongside increased revenue from tourism. How would people in Maine feel about a NATIONAL FOREST instead?
There is no NEED for it. The land is already there and being managed. And available for people to use..
fact is groups like this have NO vested interest in MAINE or MAINE PEOPLE!. The burdon of this will fall on the residents of Maine who are already under enough pressure from over taxation and regulation.
If they want to fix something that is broken go to south america and save the rain forest.. Fact is Maine has more forest land now then it did 100 years ago.
Well, this conversation seems a bit too one-sided, so I will weigh in. I work with the National Park Service as a biologist. I think and have always thought the parks are a deserved source of national pride, and occupy an important place in our national heritage.
I certainly see what you are saying about some of these initiatives, which are usually by urbanites from somewhere else that affect locals far away. There is something unsavory about that. However, I would make two points: 1) national parks usually tend to increase the socioeconomic well-being around them, because they elevate otherwise lovely areas to a larger prominence (many considerations and trade offs in each instance, so I am not saying it is always the case); 2) many areas you know and love are available for your visitation and low-cost enjoyment because of the forethought of others, and in some cases downright generosity (Great Smokies, Acadia, Grand Canyon, etc.). That is a great American tradition. So, it is a two way street.
I realize that the "restore" campaign seems to align with the relatively unsavory option of self-interested types from Mass. outlining something in Maine for a national park. Perhaps Baxter State Park is all you need in Maine, but I just wanted to say the general discussion is a good one, and I think it is healthy to air more than one viewpoint. Are there any/many in Maine that favor the idea, or is it simply another urban environmentalist reaching across your plates?
As an Oregonian, I have no strong opinion on this myself for N. Maine, but I believe the national park concept is a very good one, when implemented fairly, for the long-term benefit of our country. I have enough experience with rural culture and wealthy ex-urbanites here in Oregon to see both sides, particularly when the latter force their views on the former. However, neither would fit the "definition of evil" to me. Land use debates are always fractious.
With all due respect, I understand your points, but it often occurs to me that many people have little to no knowledge of how important the paper/wood industry was/is to the socioeconomic health of this state. Obviously, the reasons the industry has gone to pot in comparison to their heydays are long, varied, and not exclusive to those who simply want to save the trees, but there are still many people who make their living in the woods up here. Somehow, I can't picture some of the loggers I know working the gate of the National Forest, or in the coffee/souvenir shop beyond it.
So with that said, I'll offer a little history to those who would rather see Maine become a playground for those who have no forests left because they have over-developed their own states, and by all appearances, seem to have a "Onceler" (as in Dr. Suess's The Lorax) sense of guilt about it now.
Maine Pulp & Paper: A Brief History of Papermaking (http://www.pulpandpaper.org/html/history_of_papermaking.html - broken link)
With all due respect, I understand your points, but it often occurs to me that many people have little to no knowledge of how important the paper/wood industry was/is to the socioeconomic health of this state. Obviously, the reasons the industry has gone to pot in comparison to their heydays are long, varied, and not exclusive to those who simply want to save the trees, but there are still many people who make their living in the woods up here. Somehow, I can't picture some of the loggers I know working the gate of the National Forest, or in the coffee/souvenir shop beyond it.
So with that said, I'll offer a little history to those who would rather see Maine become a playground for those who have no forests left because they have over-developed their own states, and by all appearances, seem to have a "Onceler" (as in Dr. Suess's The Lorax) sense of guilt about it now.
Maine Pulp & Paper: A Brief History of Papermaking (http://www.pulpandpaper.org/html/history_of_papermaking.html - broken link)
With all due respect, I understand your points, but it often occurs to me that many people have little to no knowledge of how important the paper/wood industry was/is to the socioeconomic health of this state. Obviously, the reasons the industry has gone to pot in comparison to their heydays are long, varied, and not exclusive to those who simply want to save the trees, but there are still many people who make their living in the woods up here. Somehow, I can't picture some of the loggers I know working the gate of the National Forest, or in the coffee/souvenir shop beyond it.
So with that said, I'll offer a little history to those who would rather see Maine become a playground for those who have no forests left because they have over-developed their own states, and by all appearances, seem to have a "Onceler" (as in Dr. Suess's The Lorax) sense of guilt about it now.
Maine Pulp & Paper: A Brief History of Papermaking (http://www.pulpandpaper.org/html/history_of_papermaking.html - broken link)
Well, on this point, I am no amateur. I have spent my career researching resource management, and its trade offs in many places from the Intermountain West to the Pacific Northwest, and Ireland. I appreciate everyone's points about the viability of the North Woods culture and economy. Entirely understandable. I was simply pointing out that in a larger context having some preserved parklands in the portfolio would not necessarily be bad. As I said, I believe that RESTORE is trying to create a huge national park in N. Maine, and that is probably over-the-top. However, the larger discussion is valid.
On a personal level, I am very intrigued by the East, for two reasons: 1) it is largely private land; 2) nearly all of it has already been logged or cleared in the past. So, we are not talking about a pristine landscape without people. National Parks are equally about people. Out West, we tend to have a huge number of environmentalists who have moved west from Dubuque, Chicago, Boston,etc. to "save" the old growth. It is just as annoying out here to have outsiders who have no clue about the ecology and economy throw their weight around. And worse yet, many people who move here build huge 4000 sf trophy homes, and then try to shut down logging. Hypocrites.
It is equally true that the small populations of marginal areas of our country (E. Oregon, Idaho, Montana, N. Minnesota, N. Maine) are part of a much larger country, and their desires must be considered along with the needs of the majority. Personally, I am interested in areas where people can all participate in a discussion of how to manage landscapes for resource use, recreation, biological diversity conservation, scenic beauty,etc. It has been my lifelong passion. Trust me, Oregon is extremely polarized about land use, with the rural / urban divide in viewpoints that would be very familiar to Mainers. But I really believe the long-term solutions will not come through enviro or anti-government slogans, but through well-designed arguments, mutual respect, and negotiation. And I would guess that is as true in Maine and it is in Oregon.
What about a compromise??? How about the North Maine Woods NATIONAL FOREST??? There could still be a limited amount of timber extraction (national forests are not as strictly protected as national parks are), alongside increased revenue from tourism. How would people in Maine feel about a NATIONAL FOREST instead?
Hey Lentz,
What are you interested in with a public land option? Just curious. Generally, wouldn't that involve condemning private land? I am sure that would cause the same "government takeover" fear that a national park would create. Could conservation easement, or perhaps a nonprofit "North Woods Conservancy" achieve the same end point without federal land.
I am quite intrigued by this. I have studied the development of national parks in Great Britain and Ireland. In neither case, was there much, if any public land, and people were everywhere. In Britain, national parks include villages and little public land,but the whole area has a special designation. In Ireland, the national parks were all public land, with no people living in them. I am assuming the Irish did the second to be more like the USA and less like Britain. Though I wonder if the British approach was better, given their history and land ownership patterns. Fascinating to me how people reach these trade offs, and it seems like there are multiple pathways to achieving a conservation vision for a landscape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
