Times are changing and people are not going to access all this land “unfettered” anymore.  That’s what Roxanne Quimby said in a recently posted Facebook video regarding land leases and camps on her property.  Land that had been open to everyone for generations to recreate on.  Apparently that is now “unfettered access” that must be stopped by gates and no trespassing signs.  Which is perfectly fine, and she is well within her rights as a property owner to do so.  Where the irony comes in for me, is her purpose and intent.  Which is to give the land away to make a National Park for” everyone”  to use.  In fact, I believe the proponents of the Park have even made the statement on their website that it needs to be a National Park so that everyone can use it, not just a ‘select few”.  I’m using the same argument – it should not be given to the Feds as a National Park, as only a select few will be able to use it.  Who is right?

I have a somewhat slight advantage of having lived next to a National Park, and I can tell you that when you ask proponents a direct question, such as,  “will snowmobiling be allowed?”  the answer will be yes.  What you have to watch for is what is not being said which is the “but”. Remember folks, it’s a National Park.  Snowmobiling may or may not be allowed, and if it is it will be a far cry from what it is today.  In fact,  to quote a New York Times article where a judge struck down the idea to allow more snowmobiles on the restricted areas in Yellowstone “Environmentalists are encouraging park officials to keep the number of snowmobiles around 260 a day for the coming season — the average number that have used the parks for the past five years — and eventually to phase them out. “ This is the direction the National Park Service is taking, discouraging, not encouraging snowmobile use which are obviously contrary to any Park preservation plan.   Hunting allowed in the Park?  I’d love for someone to send me a list of the National Parks that you can hunt in, and on the tiny parcels that you may be able to I’d like to see the permit/red tape process that allows you to.  ATV’s ?  Yeah right. I could go through the list of all the things that would not be allowed in the Park, but suffice it  to say that their logic is flawed.  When we, as Mainers, had “unfettered” access, it was truly open to “everyone”.  You could snowshoe, bird watch, hunt, fish, camp without paying toll fees and exorbitant camping fees, etc etc etc – the list goes on and on. So, proponents, your logic is flawed.  A National Park is restricting access, and allowing only a ‘select’ few, and it’s misleading to say otherwise. Remember this too – Proponents of the Park do not speak for the NPS.

There is a  fight going on in West Virginia with the National Park Service that you can read about here.

There are already access issues related to the proposed National Park that you can read about here.

What images does Northern Maine conjure up for you?   Maine has always been a state of rough wilderness with people known for their self reliance, individuality, ruggedness, and a sense of independence.  People come here to experience the rougher end of wilderness living.  The adventures people have in Maine are chronicled in countless books and magazines.  A wilderness experience is what Northern Maine is all about, and that experience  for most includes some sort of “traditional use”.

When it comes to the people of Maine, you hear the words “traditional use” a lot.  But what does traditional use really mean?  For me, it has it’s origins from an unwritten Wilderness code of ethics among early woodsmen which basically stated that – my cabin is unlocked.  Should you find yourself in need of it for the night, please use it.  Replace the firewood that you use.  Leave food if you can, and leave it in as good or better condition than you found it.  Those were the beginnings of traditional use.   And to some extent it still exists today.  It’s funny, when I bought property in Maine, there were 9 lots that were for sale, about 40 acres each.  Within a short amount of time, 7 lots had no trespassing signs on them, and two did not.  Guess which lots were purchased by Mainers.  My property there will, as long as I live, remain unposted, and it made me happy a few years ago to hear a brace of beagles in the cedar bog on the lower end of the property chasing a rabbit.   Also, Maine still has the rather unique rule that if property is not posted, then a person has the right to access it, unless asked to leave by the landowner.  Folks not from here sometimes have a problem grasping that.  Traditional use also means  access for hunting, fishing,trapping, and in later years snowmobiling.

There are alternatives to the National Park plan that can make everyone happy, proponents owe it to the State of Maine to explore them.

My perception is that the landowner  that wants to give away this land to the Feds prides herself on appearing radical.   I issue an even more radical proposal to counter the National Park one;

Native Americans were the first true environmentalists.

To the American Indian land ownership was nearly incomprehensible; this is probably why they were so terribly defrauded of it early on, and then later by continued false treaties. They held land in common as a tribe, but it was as if they were borrowing it from the Creator, and using it for the tribe’s benefit. In the same way hunting animals was in a sense, borrowing animals for their food from both the Creator, and the animal itself. They held animals in high regard generally—seeing them as fellow creatures.   source for quotes is [ www.melungeons.com/articles/american.htm]

Again, to the Indian you could no more own the earth than you could the sky, or the ocean. It was on loan to the people to keep in trust for the following generations. They might recognize a particular area as their domain, or hunting grounds, but they would never think of chopping it up into little sections where other members of the tribe would be excluded.

I challenge proponents to be even more radical,  and take us back to a time when land really was open for all to use. I challenge you to allow “unfettered access” to your land. It could be a model for other states to adopt, it would be taken up by the National and even the World media – and we could go back to being ‘ true’ environmentalists.  Ones that took only what was needed,  that hunted and fished and had unfettered access.   That would be a legacy well worth pursuing!!!

 

The North Maine Woods.  What image comes into your mind when you read those words? A riverman standing on the spring log drive to the mill? A fir tipped horizon on a calm lake at sunset? Class III whitewater? Or how about an American Indian watching you silently from the bank? A large trout bending your fly pole?  At one point in history any one of those images would be true.

One of the things I find fascinating about camping , especially in Maine’s North Woods, is that as the night darkens and you are sitting by a campfire, lost in your thoughts, it is a timeless moment. With the loons beginning their calls, it could be any moment in history. If you want to transcend time, go camping in the remote Maine wilderness. It’s been wild and free and accessible for everyone forever.

Except parts of it are no longer accessible. What a twist of irony that for generations and generations the people of Maine were allowed public access to private lands for all recreational use, until  kingdom parcels  bought by Roxanne Quimby, who states that her goal is  to make the land  accessible to everyone by making it a National Park, were promptly gated and closed off to access.  The first large landowner in Northern Maine to do this.  The lands already WERE accessible for everyone to use until this happened. I just don’t understand that mentality.  If we keep the land  as it has been for generations, we ALL have access to it – that includes the hunter, the hiker, the bird watcher, and the snowmobiler, not just a select few.

There are many stories about how the proposed second National Park in Maine  is already affecting people – these are personal stories  that need to reach as many people as possible.    Wassataquoik Stream has always been on my “to paddle” and visit list and apparently I wouldn’t be able to get in there and paddle it now. What I just can’t fathom is why do you  think it’s still there for you to need to protect??  Because we’ve been such good stewards of this land.  Traditional access and use in Maine is an idea that is unparalleled in this nation.  It makes Maine unique and special and privileged.  It trumps the “for the good of all” NPS mentality because it really is for the good of all – not just a select few. We should be championing  that thought process for all lands.   Many many thanks to the person that posted the video below.  At the very least I can see the stream through your eyes – thank you for taking me there.

One of those personal stories is found here -Access Denied

Please read it and share it with everyone you know.  This is what’s really happening to our beloved Maine.  Eye opening and well written. The will of one person should not be imposed against the will of the People.

Wassataquoik Stream:

The Lovely Rivers And Lakes Of Maine
by George B.Wallis

O, The lovely rivers and Lakes of Maine!
I am charmed with their names, as my song will explain;
Aboriginal muses  inspire my strain,
While I sing the bright rivers and lakes of  Maine-
From Cupsuptic to Cheputmatticook
From Sagadahock to Pohenegamook-
‘gamook, ‘gamook, Pohenegamook,
From Sagadahock to Pohenegamook.
For light serenading the “Blue Moselle”,
“Bonnie Doon” and “Sweet Avon” may do  very well;
But the rivers of Maine, in their wild solitudes,
Bring a  thunderous sound from the depth of the woods:

The Aroostook and  Chimmenticook,
The Chimpanaoc and Chinquassabamtook-
‘bamtook, ‘bamtook,  Chinquassabamtook,
The Chimpassoc and Chinquassabamtook,
Behold how they  sparkle and flash in the sun!
The Mattewamkeag and the Mussungun;
The kingly Penobscot, the wild Woolastook,
Kennebec, Kennebago and Sebasticook;
The pretty Presumpscut and gay Tulanbic;
The Ess’quilsagook and little  Schoodic-
Schoodic, Schoodic; The little Schoodic;
The Ess’quilsagook  and little Schoodic.

Yes, Yes, I prefer the bright rivers of  Maine,
To the Rhine or the Rhone or the Saone or the Seine;
These may do  for the Cockney, but give me some nook,
On the Ammonoosuc or the  Wytopadiook.
On the Umsaskis or the Ripogenis,
The Ripogenis or the  Piscataquis-
‘aguis, ‘aguis,
The Piscataguis. “Away down South,” the  Cherokee
Has named his river the Tennessee,
The Chattahoochee and the  Ocmulgee,
The Congaree and the Ohoopee;
But what are they, or the  Frenchy Detroit,

To the Passadumkeag or the Wassatoquoit-
‘toquoit, ‘toquoit, The Wassatoquoit,
To the Passadumkeag or the  Wassatoquoit-
Then turn to the beautiful lakes of Maine
To the Sage of  Auburn be given the strain,
The statesman whose genius and bright fancy,  makes
The earth’s highest glories to shine in its lakes;
What lakes out  of Maine can we place in the book
With the Matagomon and the Pangokomook
”ommok, ‘ommok, The Pangokomook,
With the Matagomon and the  Pangokomook?
Lake Leman, or Como, what care I for them,

When  Maine has the Moosehead and Pangokwahem,
And, sweet as the dews in the  violet’s kiss,
Wallahgosqueqamook and Telesimis;
And when I can share in  the fisherman’s bunk
On the Moosetuckmaguntic or Mol’tunkamunk?
And  Maine has the Eagle Lakes, Cheppawagan,

And the little Sepic and the little  Scapan,
The spreading Sebago, the Congomgomoc,
The Milliemet and  Motesoinloc,
Caribou and the fair Anmonjenegamook,
Oquassaac and rare  Wetokenebacook-
‘acook, ‘accook

Oquassac and rare  Wetokenebacook.
And there are the Pokeshine and Patquongomis;
And there  is the pretty Coscomgonnosis,
The Pemadumook and the old Chesuncook,
Sepois and Mooseleuk; and take care not to miss
The Umbazookskus or the  Sysladobsis.
‘dobsis, ‘dobsis, The Sysladobsis.

O, Give me the rivers  and lakes of Maine
In her mountains or forests or fields of grain,
In  the depth of the shade or the blaze of the sun,
The lakes of Schoodic and  the Basconegun,
And the dear Waubasoos and the clear Aquessuc,
The  Cosbosecontic and Millenkikuk-
‘kikuk, ‘kikuk, The Millenkikuk,
The  Cosbosecontic and Millenkikuk!

Transcribed by Janice  Farnsworth

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bring you news and beaver plews from the land that is Beyond
Where one can follow their dreams on the morning steams
Like Thoreau on his journey thru the ponds
I’ve laid many fires
I’ve portaged deep mires
and patiently made my way.

I’ve dined on Moose and Beaver tail
beside the shimmering stream
I’ve camped and hiked and broken trail
whilst under the moonlight’s gleam.

I tell you now it looks the same
As ever it did back then;
The trees the swamps the magic lakes
And even the lowly fen.

With no one to protect; it shows our respect
Of the land the water and view
Thru the dawn of time and each era in kind
HAHA!  I can think of a few!

I’ve seen it I say! With my own two eyes!
Looking aloft this evenings rise; It’s still a fir tipped view!
And I tell you now that nothings afoot that could ever exact its demise.

My paddle danced, as I entranced
Took in the beautiful scene
No soul in sight just the awesome might of the wildland before me
Land that has stood the test of time and has no enemy.

Yet I start to sense and slowly fear;
Indeed! I say;  A wolf is at the door!
A wolf that thinks this beautiful place
Requires some sort of RESTORE.

A wolf that cajoles, and bargains with naught
Of promises that disappear

A wolf that gates, and great pleasure takes
In its bid for Federal control
A wolf whose eyes light up at the prize;
The 3.2 million acre goal!

A wolf that sits back and slowly awaits
The arrival of its prey
We’re doing what we can but we need your help!
To Forever keep it at Bay!

Eminent Domain is a scary and controversial word.  It’s definition is; “The right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.”

My perception is people without much experience with National Parks would tend to scoff at the word today – label it as fear mongering or some other tactic.

Proponents of a second National Park in Maine haven’t mentioned it.

So here’s the question – do you think it’s still used?

You don’t have to look far at all in Maine to find its threat of use. In fact, you don’t have to look further than Acadia.

Originally, Acadia had a “willing seller” clause that it adhered to – that is to say, they would not acquire more land without a willing seller.

But, as is always the way – things change and during the 1980’s that clause was stripped, a clause that was sought to put back in (I can’t find evidence that it was) to HR2692 which passed the senate in 2006.

A bill that “does a number of things but from where we stand it gives Acadia a huge portion of likely land acquisition funding, disproportionate to the size and needs of the park. This can only be interpreted as a rush to the use of eminent domain.”

The Superintendent at that time made the following statement in a quote taken from the article Acadia Lust for More Land written by Erich Veyhl in 2006;

“Superintendent Sheridan Steele has an important vision. He wants to ‘fill in the holes’ by purchasing or putting under easement the 157 private parcels inside Acadia’s boundary. Congress authorized the acquisition. … Maine’s pro-Acadia Congressional delegation, Friends of Acadia, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, and others are working to reverse the situation. This is crucial if, as Steele hopes, the park’s interior is to be made whole by 2016, the 100th anniversary of Acadia’s founding and the establishment of the National Park Service.”

Sounding like a similar tune on a number of fronts?

This statement was not casual – Mr. Steele had a big role in lots of eminent domain actions at Cuyahoga National Park, which is the very town in the For the Good of All video:

As I try to wade through this I find it so complicated and hard to sort out… so convoluted…I am amazed that anyone would want to do this to our beloved North Maine Woods. It’s a continuous fight for the people affected – a seemingly endless one.  Read the articles linked below and see for yourself the individual stories of people that were involved in this mess.

I think another quote from Erich Veyhl in his article sums it up the best;

The next time you hear someone promote the viro preservation agenda of more government control for what they call “protecting” someone else’s private property at the expense of his rights and the declining rural private economy, regardless of how much you like scenery yourself, remind him how the Bar Harbor Times intoned: “No plan involving the protection of land for the public good can be implemented without pain and sacrifice” – pain and suffering for ordinary people, that is, not the wealthy well-connected viro pressure groups and land trusts fronting for government agencies. Tell him that as a decent human being in good standing as an actual member of the public, that you want no part of trampling other people’s rights, or the “pain and sacrifice” inflicted on people who have no say over what is done to them in the name of what preservationists call “compromise” for the “public good.”

I would ask you to do the same and think about what a second National Park would really mean for Maine.

Don’t think eminent domain is a real threat?  It happens.  Despite what proponents would have you believe, National Parks ALWAYS grow bigger….one way or another.

Here are a couple of articles on the Acadia National Park eminent domain issue.  It came to a rolling boil in 2006, and has calmed down since then.

Acadia National Park Bill – Big Money Grab and Eminent Domain

Major Domain Scandal at Acadia

And lastly – a really funny video that sends the message through satire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the presumptions pervading the general conscience of Maine is that the Forest Industry is and has been in a steady decline, and that is simply not the case.  Maine is actually producing more timber, paper products, and wood products than ever – and with the global population growing, demand is also growing.  With the price of oil rising, large businesses are switching to boilers that burn pellets instead of oil which is a way for Maine to become energy independent.   There is an example of yet another business in Maine switching over to a wood pellet boiler here. The budding biofuel industry is growing. In fact, the Government just did it’s largest purchase of biofuel ever which you can see here. It’s been discovered during the past 10 years that Pine trees produce a rare substance that is part of making the Tamiflu vaccine, you can read about that discovery here.

These industries completely overshadow any thought that a National Park is the answer for jobs in the proposed region. A National Park that comes with buffer zones which affect the surrounding landowners, restricting land use and timber harvests. Maine is good at growing and harvesting trees – it’s a renewable resource and it’s what we do.  How embarrassed would you be when Maine has to start importing wood at a higher cost for boiler pellets and biofuel industries when we have 3.2 million acres tied up in a National Park.  The land that would stay open for everyone to use as it always has been if we left it a working forest.  That’s the reason why it’s there for proponents to want to “protect”, because we’ve managed it so well.

What a twist of irony that for generations and generations the people of Maine were allowed public access to private lands for all recreational use, until  kingdom parcels  bought by Roxanne Quimby who states that her goal is  to make the land  accessible to everyone by making it a National Park, were promptly gated and closed off to access.  The first large landowner in Northern Maine to do this.  The lands already WERE accessible for everyone to use until this happened. I just don’t understand that mentality.  If we keep the land in forest production as it has been for generations, we ALL have access to it – that includes the hunter, the hiker, the bird watcher, and the snowmobiler, not just a select few.

There are so many viable alternatives that can make everybody happy – such as a land trust or Public Reserve land – alternatives that can provide recreation for ALL , and yet still avoid all the rules and regulations that will come with a National Park and provide actual viable jobs, not seasonal dead end ones.

I agree with Jim Robbins in his BDN article here that there are  alternatives to a National Park that would make everyone a winner.

We urge proponents of a National Park to consider these alternatives that would be better for all of the people of Maine not just a select few.  If a 3.2 million acre leviathan National Park is truly not your goal, then you owe it to the people of Maine to explore these other options and alternatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many claims are out there that a proposed second National Park in Maine will be an economic engine that will revitalize the economy, and  get people off of social programs and back working again.

We all have heard the statement about Maine being a welfare state: Source

And the subsequent apology;  Source

But lets think about that for a second – certainly statistics show that Maine has a high number of folks on welfare – the current state of the economy has hit everyone hard.  But, Maine is fortunate enough to have Acadia National Park!!!! A National Park that has created jobs and research and all these wonderful things – certainly it has revitalized and grown the economy in that region and given people employment!!?  Right???   The source of the data below  is MaineOpenGov.org, and states  the percentage of the population of the town using a welfare program -

Lets take a look at the towns in Hancock County that are within the shortest driving distance to Acadia National Park;

Municipality,Sum (Welfare_Program_Percent_Population)
Sullivan,60.5%
Eastbrook,58.0%
Franklin,56.0%
Ellsworth,54.7%
Swans Island,53.5%
Hancock,49.6%
Mariaville,48.4%
Waltham,44.4%
Gouldsboro,42.3%
Winter Harbor,35.8%
Cranberry Isles,34.0%
Southwest Harbor,32.9%
Trenton,32.0%
Lamoine,26.7%
Bar Harbor,23.4%
Tremont,22.9%

And lets pick another county - How about a few towns
in Cumberland for an example;

Municipality,Sum (Welfare_Program_Percent_Population)
South Portland,33.3%
Windham,32.1%
New Gloucester,31.7%
Gray,28.5%
Standish,27.5%
Brunswick,27.0%
Freeport,25.6%
Long Island,24.5%
Peaks Island,24.4%
Gorham,24.0%
Raymond,23.0%
Harpswell,20.2%
Pownal,19.4%
Scarborough,16.3%
Yarmouth,14.4%
North Yarmouth,11.3%
Falmouth,11.1%
Cape Elizabeth,10.3%
Cumberland,8.9%

How do the numbers look to you? Revitalized?  Lots of jobs near Acadia National Park being filled?

Acadia only directly employs 100 permanent and 130 seasonal employees.  See the  Source  of that figure, and most of those are not filled with locals, nor are the surrounding indirect jobs that dry up every fall.  The old Bar Harbor joke is I landed in town and never made enough money to leave.

A ~ 70,000 acre National Park will do nothing for the economy.   There are alternatives and compromises that would.

THINK.

No Park for ME

 

Proponents of a second national park in Maine have made the statement that towns that are adjacent to National Parks enjoy greater economic prosperity.  What they don’t say is that National Parks are typically centered around some type of jewel such as Cadillac Mountain, Death Valley, Grand Tetons etc etc.  Places that people were going to and wanted to see anyway that needed protecting for all of us to enjoy.  The area of the proposed National Park has no jewel – the jewel is Katahdin which is already under state protection because Percival Baxter had the foresight to see that a National Park wasn’t a good idea for Northern Maine.

So, tourists would be going to visit these areas regardless of whether or not they enjoyed National Park status.  Think about it for a minute.  Think about Old Orchard Beach – no National Park there, and you cannot dispute that it is a destination spot for tourists.  The economy of Old Orchard Beach  is equivalent or greater to that of Bar Harbor, and Bar Harbor would enjoy that same prosperity whether or not there was a National Park next to it; the same as Rockland, Camden,Kennebunkport and the myriad of other coastal towns.

In time, we may see some projected tourism economic data on the proposed National Park.   Tourism studies usually include three terms the first being direct spending which is; the purchases of goods and services that are directly incorporated into the visit such as tolls, camping fees, and firewood purchased at the Park.  The next term is an important one and is called indirect spending.  This is important because this figure can be manipulated to suit the bias of the author.  Indirect spending includes all the spending related to the visit that is not spent directly at the destination such as gas and food on the way to the destination, and that number can be diluted out to infinity. The final term is multiplier and is even more convoluted that indirect spending.  A multiplier is  a factor of proportionality that measures how much an   endogenous variable changes in response to a change in some exogenous variable.  For example, suppose a one-unit change in some variable x causes another variable y to change by M units – M being the multiplier. To use an analogy if there is a 60 miles stretch of highway with no gas stations and I build one I have caused a variable (x).  I then cause Y to change by bringing people to my gas station by a multiplier (M) which can be garnered from traffic studies, surveys and the like.  This variable is the easiest one to manipulate and if you start seeing the words premise, projection,relative, forecast, and assumption that’s the time to get nervous, because these terms translate to “I have no idea, but manipulated the numbers to suit me.” It’s a guess.  Basically all you have to remember when you start reading about multipliers is that the actual multiplier is always close to zero.  For every new dollar spent, someone else is losing a dollar, just like in my simple gas station example as I would be taking money away from nearby gas stations.

The same can (and is) being said about jobs.  There are direct jobs and indirect jobs associated with National Parks.  However, just like indirect spending, indirect jobs can be manipulated by the data wielder.  As I stated in the beginning, I believe that Bar Harbor, like Old Orchard beach, would be a destination spot whether there was a National Park  there or not.  In fact I could probably make a strong case that were Acadia NP  to end existence tomorrow that there would be even more economic multipliers and jobs in this region – after all, what rich person wouldn’t want to stay in  a hotel on top of Cadillac Mtn? I say this to make the point that there is no way to measure indirect jobs here in Acadia National Park  because those jobs would be here regardless.  Therefore we can only measure direct jobs in Acadia.  So, here’s the million dollar question – how many jobs do you think Acadia National Park directly creates?   A park that enjoys great popularity, and has 2 to 3 millions visitors per year.  Got a figure in your head?

100 permanent and 130 seasonal employees.  See the  Source  of that figure.

That’s it – for 3 million visitors.

How many jobs do you think the proposed National Park will ACTUALLY create.

How many visitors do you think they will attract?

Think about it.

What we can look at is how many visitors  Baxter attracts…Baxter that has the jewel of the region, and encompasses ~ 200,000 acres or about 2.8 times the sized of the proposed National Park.  Baxter Park did their own study in 2008 and came up with the following data; approximately 60,000 visitors come to the Park annually of which (51%) of survey participants reported that they were day users and  (44%) reported that they were overnight users.

Of those overnight users the vast majority only spent one night in the park, which is about what I would think  based on the use of the area (predominantly hiking), and would be the same figure  for the proposed National Park.   Places like Acadia you stay for a week as there is so much to do…it’s such a diverse resource.   The people that would likely stay for a week in the Millinocket region would be consumptive users, such as snowmobilers – and yet the proposed Park would greatly restrict or ban them outright.

So,Baxter Park, which has the jewel that people want to come see in Katahdin, and was protected as a State Park because Percival Baxter did not want a National Park in Maine  attracts ~ 60,000 visitors annually the majority of whom are either day users or 1 overnight users.

When I took Park Planning in college we were taught that you first did an overlook of the current use of the property.  For example, what do visitors of Baxter Park go for?  Hiking?  Perfect, a Park would fit with the current use of the area.  So, before the proposed National Park parcel was gated to the public, what did the public go to do there?  What was the use of the area?  Traditionally consumptive  use – hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, ATV’s –   uses that are not compatible with a National Park.  To create a National Park in the proposed region you would have to change the current use of the area, something that rarely works.

The proponents of a proposed second National Park in Maine announce continuously that this is about jobs and economic revitalization which it will not accomplish.   We’ve already seen here that the creation of the 3.2 million acre goal will lose at minimum 64,000 jobs by locking up that property.

A National Park in this proposed region of Maine is just not a good idea, and will not revitalize the economy – it won’t even dilute it.

There are some more great thoughts about the proposed national park here

No Park for ME.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponents of a second National Park in Maine claim it will be a jobs creator and an economic engine that will revitalize the economy, and that other states are benefiting from having Federal lands near them.     We’ve already shown here  that is not necessarily the case.

Another state where that is not the case is Utah.  Utah is so stifled by the rules and regulations that come with the “wonderful gift” of Federal land that they passed House Bill 143 giving them the authority to use eminent domain to condemn the Federal Lands within their borders.   Oregon is hoping to follow Utah’s lead and do the same thing.  This is what’s happening in other states  – rules, regulations, and mismanagement have stifled the economy instead of growing it.

Oregon is very similar to Maine in that they have a large timber resource that has now been plagued with wildfires and a slow decline of the timber industry due to Federal regulations locking away the land, and jobs have moved away from “family-wage levels to low paying, dead-end jobs in the tourism industry.”

Utah realized that the Federal Government had failed to take into account the economic needs of the state against their environmental concerns, to the point where they decided to do something about it – in their words  “land that is currently mis-managed and neglected by the federal government would be transferred to either state government or private citizens, who would make use of the land to create jobs, revitalize rural communities, boost the economy, and balance state and local budgets. What a concept.”

Other states are not happy with their Federal Lands, and states such as California and Nevada both of whom have popular National Parks and large amounts of land owned by the Feds also have economies that are in the toilet, not revitalized.

I don’t want that for Maine.  We can do better than that on our own.

You can read the full article source here

 

    A member of our group recently presented this thought:

The PLC is forming a group of logging professionals to come to Portland and explain how the Portland Waterfront should be managed. Please welcome them with open arms and open minds. After all, the Portland Waterfront is an integral part of Maine’s heritage, and these loggers know the best solutions on how to make the Waterfront thrive.  Many of them visit the Waterfront and the Old Port a couple of times a year. Some of them have never been there, but they “like” the idea of knowing it’s “there”. It’s for “The Good of All”.

Respectfully,

The Real Friends of the Waterfront.

If you saw this headline and excerpt in today’s paper what would you think?

Would you laugh?  Think it must be some sort of joke?  Think maybe you were reading The Sardine Report  who reported that the Northwoods Theme Park was gaining support?

Why is it then do you take it seriously when the situation is reversed?

There is a reason that the land the proponents of a second National Park  so badly want to protect is still there after all these years, and that’s because Maine has done a spectacular job of keeping it  without the need for Federal control.

Proponents are correct in saying that this is an issue for the entire state,  but one should let the experts of the industry have a little more leeway with the facts -  the people that have lived here for generations and fought the battles over the years don’t you think?  Shouldn’t we give them some deference?  Certainly a logging professional has about as much business getting involved in a lobstering referendum as a lobsterman does creating rules about mechanical thinning.  Granted they should each have their say as it affects everyone, but one should also listen to the people with the experience and the knowledge.

It brings to my mind an essay written by Noel Perrin entitled “The Rural Immigration Law”  Noel wrote a series of essays published in three books; First, Second, and Third Person Rural.  They are well thought out pieces . In “The Rural Immigration Law” Noel outlines a tongue in cheek law that you should have to follow if you move to  a rural state.  Those of us who have lived here in Maine for a long time remember the hard fought battles over the years against those that wanted to change us.  Noel was a farmer in rural Vermont which, at the time of his writing, was experiencing a large influx of people “from away” who moved there for the local charm, and then began trying to change things, such as adding golf courses, making ordinances against keeping farm animals, and even trying to protect land.

The law would read that if you wanted to move into the state  you would be granted a visa that was good for one year. At the end of that year you went before a board comprised entirely of native  farmers, loggers, and road crew workers, and present concrete evidence that you had acclimated, such as taking care of a large farm animal for a year. Should you fail to pass, your taxes would automatically double. If you did pass you were granted a five year visa under the same conditions and  if you again passed, you were considered an accepted resident.  You would have the right to vote on state issues only after becoming an accepted resident of the state.

Fun to think about at least – It would certainly have kept the battles to a minimum over the years.

Our land is here for those who want to protect it because of our stewardship over the years.    If indeed the land proposed is not a “seed” for a much larger Park then there are ways that we can compromise and achieve what we all want without creating a National Park.

Read

Think

Share

 

 

The proponents of a second National Park in Maine have stated that this wonderful “gift” will be an economic engine and revitalize the economy of Northern Maine.    Proponents have previously  said that the proposed National Park  is the ONLY viable option to create jobs…that is…until Cate Street Capital opened up the mill again in East Millinocket.   Now that tune has changed to the proposed Park would be part of economic “diversity” in the region,  implying that the two can work hand in hand.   When pressed for information, what we get is the answer that a feasibility study is needed – now downgraded to a reconnaissance study after the feasibility study was voted against 513-132  -the results of which you can see here.   Yet one only has to do some simple searches on the internet to come up with some hard facts.

First, the proponents of the proposed Park would have us believe that should the Park come to fruition that the Northern Maine economy will be “revitalized” .  Lets look at some other states and see if that is true.

The Federal Government owns almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers), which is nearly 30% of it’s total territory.

In Maine, there is 22,646,400 acres, of which Acadia National Park comprises 47,748.

Should the proposed 70,000 acre “seed” become the 3.2 million acre goal, 14% of Maine’s land will be under Federal control.  Pretty big number. For proof that the goal is indeed 3.2 million acres, see unanswered questions.

So, let’s look at another state – how about Nevada.  In Nevada the Federal Government owns 84.5% of the land and it’s  two popular National Parks – Great Basin and Death Valley.  So, if the proponents of the new Park for Maine are correct in their theory, Nevada’s economy should be revitalized and the economic engine should be chugging right along.

So, what do you think Nevada’s unemployment rate is??

13.4%

Lets look at California  – 45.3% of which is under Federal control and home to; Golden Gate Recreation Area, Joshua Tree NP, Lassen NP, Lava Beds NM, Pinnacles NM, Redwood NP, and the ever popular Yosemite NP.  According to the proponents theory, California should be very well off with all that Federal land and jobs.

And yet the unemployment rate for California is almost 12%.

Maine, with very little Federal control has an unemployment rate of 7.5%, or almost half that of states that have a lot of Federal land and popular National Parks.

In fact, one could make the argument from the data that Maine’s unemployment rate is more likely to go UP if we got a new National Park.

Lets look at the Forest Products Industry in Maine.

10 years ago Restore did an economic impact study of their proposed 3.2 million acre park, and things have changed a lot in those 10 years.  They projected that jobs related to the forest industry here in maine would be declining  and the gradual phasing out of forestry jobs.   But, like all industries, the forest industry has progressed.  It’s not all about paper any more.  The wood pellet industry has been created and taken off in those 10 years.  With the price of oil rising, large businesses are switching  to boilers that burn pellets instead of oil.  It’s been discovered during those 10 years that Pine trees produce a rare substance that is part of the Tamflu vaccine, you can read about that discovery here.

The wood liquor industry for use as a potential fuel is in its infancy and also has potential for tremendous growth, and again wasn’t in the cards 10 years ago.   I also discovered this article during my research; record timber sales.

What will happen to this if we lock up 3.2 million acres of Maine’s working forest? What cures or vaccines or other uses for timber will happen in the next 10 years?? The predictions of Restore 10 years ago have not come true.

Even a short 6 years after Restore’s impact study came out, this study came out;

Foresty Economic Impact

Here is the all important number from that report;

The annual contribution of forest-based manufacturing and forest-related recreation and tourism to the Maine economy is over $6.47 billion.

6.47 Billion.

And more importantly;

Each 1,000 acres of forest land in Maine supports 1.2 forest-based manufacturing, forestry and logging jobs and .7 forest-related tourism and recreation jobs.

So, lets do the math.

1.9 jobs per 1000 acres is .0019 jobs/acre multiplied by 3.2 million acres is 60,800 jobs lost In just the forest industry alone.

That’s a lot of park rangers.

Restore themselves in their impact report mention that the proposed national park would eliminate1 billion from the economy.  Then they go on to try to make that number seem small and insignificant because they project declining harvest numbers, which other reports 10 years later show is not the case.

Let’s take a look at snowmobiling.

Direct evidence of snowmobiling’s economic impact on the state can be found here

and here.

So, the hard numbers are 300 -350 million brought in to the state and 2700 + jobs.

Proponents will tell you that it is ‘not true’ that a national park would ban snowmobiling, yet they are forgetting the ‘but’ after that statement.  Sure, you can snowmobile in Acadia NP – only around the loop road and ocean drive. There will be some snowmobiling in a proposed park – key word being some. It will not be like it is today.  Consider this statement “Environmentalists are encouraging park officials to keep the number of snowmobiles around 260 a day for the coming season — the average number that have used the parks for the past five years — and eventually to phase them out. “ quoted from a NY times article.  This is the direction that Parks are taking..phasing out.

Lets take a look at ATV’s  – which have become very popular over the past 10-15 years, and hunting.  The source of the data cited is “Public access to Maine’s private lands, a Cultural and Economic asset” prepared by the Maine state planning office.

In 2006 (source 2006 census) Hunters spent 240 million in the state of Maine.  I can’t find data on how many jobs that brings to the state, but think of all the guides, lodging, gun shops, and sporting goods stores, not to mention the mom and pop variety stores that benefit from this activity.

In 2004 ATV’s brought in 200 million to the state and were responsible for 1,975 jobs.

So – there are some hard numbers for you.

Back when Restore was pushing their own agenda for the same proposed National Park Ron Lovaglio came out with the following statement;

Maine Department of Conservation Commissioner Ron Lovaglio stated at the Maine Woods Conservation Easement Forum that the wood products extracted from the 3.2 million acres of forestland in the Maine North Woods adds approximately $986,000,000 to the Maine economy each year through wages and sales of products and services. According to the Maine Office of Tourism, the typical overnight visitor to our region spends $85/day. To make up for the loss of productivity of locking up 3.2 million acres of forestland, a National Park would have to bring 11.6 million ADDITIONAL tourists to the region.

The data shown earlier in this post shows his statement to be accurate.

Where do you think these tourist are going to come from?

Acadia NP – one of the most visited, only attracts approximately 3 million visitors per year as a comparison.

And finally, what about the loss of the tax base of 3.2 million acres? Maine has a tree growth tax program which greatly reduces the amount of tax paid, but they are certainly getting a large amount of money in taxes from that property.  As far as taxes go , it is basic economics 101 that if you remove a large tract of land from the tax base, the tax burden on other properties will go up. Proponents will tell you their big idea is Payment in lieu of Tax (PILOT) program – However “Although some would say that federal land will return money to the tax rolls through the Payment In Lieu Of Tax (PILOT) program, the 1994 Balanced Budget Act (as well as current budget realities) keep this program from being funded at more than 50% its necessary level. Therefore, Maine should expect no more than 50% of the reduced land value payment we should receive, should 3.2 million acres become federally owned. Consider Maine’s track record with the Tree Growth program and reimbursement to municipalities.” (Cited from Maine Woods Coalition).

And the last time I checked – our Government is broke.

 

And yet the proponents of a Park say this is a “no brainer”.

Their proposed Park will destroy Northern Maine’s economy.

I propose that it is time for a regift.

I propose that there are a number of ways that we can all get what we want – public reserved land or a land trust being a couple of  examples.

Really think about it before you support giving all this land away from our State.