The Future of the Northern Maine Woods... (Augusta, Washington: for sale, hotels)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
So Roxanne Quimby has made headlines once again for her efforts to play a role in the creation of a Maine Woods National Park. She plans to donate over 70,000+ acres of Maine land, east of Baxter State Park, to the Federal Government in 2016 for its creation. It seems to me that this is both a huge step toward conserving part of the Northern Maine Woods, but at the same time I wonder what this means for the proposed 3.2 million acre park that Restore: The Maine Woods has been working on since the 90's.
With this guarantee of 70,000+ acres isn't there the likelyhood that politicians and other role players will distance themselves from the bigger conservation effort - essentially saying "we've achieved the goal of conserving maine's north woods and creating the park" while the 70k acres is in reality only a very, very small fraction of those woods - while wealthy developers and conglomorates take over the vast forest and break it up, essentially still destroying the last great forest in the eastern USA?
Do people think that this will increase or decrease the likelyhood of the overall goal toward the massive Park? Is Quimby acting as an individual pursuing her own legacy, even if that means that the larger picture is forgotten? Or, does this situation speak to the reality that the big picture (the 3.2 million acre park) is unattainable and Quimby is leading the charge toward what is likely the only real possibilty of the Maine Woods N.P. coming to fruition?
Hi Maine Writer,
I am a big lover of the woods itself. The forest. I think it has been and continues to be one of the great gifts that Maine supplies. Now granted, some of this gift is the land that we live and travel and play upon... and some of it is the sustenence it provides through lumber, firewood, crops. So I'm not going to say we need to stop all development and conserve/preserve the entirety of the forest, but I do think that it is only a matter of time before widespread development tears into the Northern Maine Woods and severely alters it to a point where we no longer have a great deal of the natural beauty that makes this state so special IMHO.
So essentially, I am a fan of the proposed 3.2 million acre National Park. I really want that, or something very close to it to be the reality. 3.2 million acres is a heck of a lot, but it is just one-third of the currently undeveloped portion of the state of Maine. To me, this park would be a symbol of the great woods that we have lived amongst for generations, that has been living itself for millions of years, beautifully; mountains and rivers, mountains and streams and varied ecosystems harboring natural, harmonious life. This park would stand up as an official recognition of Maine's natural beauty and our appreciation of it - so much that we ensure that it forever lives for itself, and by so doing contributes to the enrichment of Maine and its people.
I'm in my early thirties. I fear that in my later life I will look back in rememberance of the natural places that I loved, places that shocked me and filled me with wonder and appreciation, and I will deeply regret that when there was a chance to save some of them it quietly slipped away.
Wealthy individuals can come in and take over vast swaths of this land with a single deal, as exemplified by John Malone's enormous purchase earlier this year. Isn't it a good idea to make sure a good chunk of it cannot ever be controlled by man?
The proposed national park is a pipe dream. There is absolutely no money for it, and I might add, no need for it. I don't know what color the sky is in the world of people who see horrific development of northern Maine. Economics would say it 'ain't' going to happen.
Hi Maine Writer,
I am a big lover of the woods itself. The forest. I think it has been and continues to be one of the great gifts that Maine supplies. Now granted, some of this gift is the land that we live and travel and play upon... and some of it is the sustenence it provides through lumber, firewood, crops. So I'm not going to say we need to stop all development and conserve/preserve the entirety of the forest, but I do think that it is only a matter of time before widespread development tears into the Northern Maine Woods and severely alters it to a point where we no longer have a great deal of the natural beauty that makes this state so special IMHO.
So essentially, I am a fan of the proposed 3.2 million acre National Park. I really want that, or something very close to it to be the reality. 3.2 million acres is a heck of a lot, but it is just one-third of the currently undeveloped portion of the state of Maine. To me, this park would be a symbol of the great woods that we have lived amongst for generations, that has been living itself for millions of years, beautifully; mountains and rivers, mountains and streams and varied ecosystems harboring natural, harmonious life. This park would stand up as an official recognition of Maine's natural beauty and our appreciation of it - so much that we ensure that it forever lives for itself, and by so doing contributes to the enrichment of Maine and its people.
I'm in my early thirties. I fear that in my later life I will look back in rememberance of the natural places that I loved, places that shocked me and filled me with wonder and appreciation, and I will deeply regret that when there was a chance to save some of them it quietly slipped away.
Wealthy individuals can come in and take over vast swaths of this land with a single deal, as exemplified by John Malone's enormous purchase earlier this year. Isn't it a good idea to make sure a good chunk of it cannot ever be controlled by man?
I know I'm beginning to sound like a one-trick pony talking about Peak Oil on the Maine forum (really, I do), but I have to ask you phitthepwr, can you reevaluate your questions concerning the Maine Woods in light of the fact that gasoline and diesel fuel may well be $10 a gallon or even more in 5 to 10 years, that half of the gas stations we know may close, that hot mix asphalt for paving could be double or triple the price it is now, with road use tax revenue used to pay for road reconstruction down by maybe a third or more from now, that electric cars, with 1/2 the range of conventional, gasoline-powered cars aren't even going to be able to reach this new park or woods in any comfortable time frame without a couple of long, painful recharge sessions somewhere roadside, that even the passenger railroads that brought vacationers north 90 years ago don't even exist anymore, and that affordability of second homes in the area, bought and owned by people coming from a good distance, could be severely challenged as a result of all these artifacts of said Oil Decline?
I ask this because I see a major shift, after decades of increasing recreational and development pressure for the Woods, I see the North Woods becoming more INaccessible after decades of increased accessibility.
I think, for example, that Plum Creek, unless they build a major portion of their Moosehead Lake project in the next few years, that they won't ever get it built.
Second homes and development pressure is going to cease to be an issue, amazing as that sounds at the moment. I can, however, see society looking towards the forests for fuel and other biomass use, on the other hand. That could be what's really at stake going forward.
As for the proposed national park, not being "controlled by man" - I have to ask, with all due respect, just what was it that we elected into the White House two and a half years ago, if not a man?
Don't you really mean you want 1/3 of the undeveloped land of Maine controlled by 536 people in far off Washington DC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same people that have been asleep at the wheel on energy issues, other than start several wars for oil (Gulf I, Iraq, Libya), all while spending us into oblivion? You want THOSE people to own most of the remaining wood land in Maine?
No thank you. That forest is about to be needed and managed for new things by more local people, not including second homes nor a national park.
Do people even know that visits to Baxter and The North Woods have been down several years running? While I can't get my hands on a link at the moment, I know I've seen several stories to that effect. Certainly, as gas goes over $4 visitation isn't going to be up *this* year.
Last edited by beltrams; 04-05-2011 at 06:39 PM..
Reason: Added Baxter visitation information
The proposed national park is a pipe dream. There is absolutely no money for it, and I might add, no need for it. I don't know what color the sky is in the world of people who see horrific development of northern Maine. Economics would say it 'ain't' going to happen.
Exactly. The idea that people are going to be able or willing to drive for hours to their subdivision of second homes, 2 hours into The North Woods, down the Golden Road .... well, that just isn't in the cards.
Due to the relatively new Maine Forest Practices Act enacted about 10 years ago there is no paper company land in Maine today; Not One Acre. It was all sold off by the paper mills because Augusta made it impossible to manage or profit from ownership of forest land in Maine. It was lunacy.
There are a few islands of private property left and there are relatively small time buyers picking up the crumbs that are left. There is not much land for sale compared to what was for sale in 1988 when Augusta created the 40 acre lot rule.
I do not see any huge crowds of people rushing to see the North Woods.
If they ain't coming now, they ain't going to come afterwards either when fuel prices are higher.
Was not Plum creek once a tourist resort, with hotels, restaurants and a paddle steamer? But then it fell into dis-use and became an abandoned ghost town?
If the Federal government did agree to print yet another Trillion fake dollars, and did pump a bunch of it into 'building' a National Park here. Other than a dozen rangers [that would be employed there] are we really thinking that folks who refuse to go there today, will suddenly flock to see? For no other purpose than just because money was spent on it?
I am concerned that this is all a boondoggle. Or as a sailor might say: "A cluster-flock of momentous proportion".
You like the Maine woods and want to preserve them. It is very easy. Buy land and leave it as is. If you wangt to use tax dollars then I say no. While the land may be donated WE the people suffer both in the terms of less property tax to be made up by the remaining residents and higher other taxes to pay for the running of said park.
Public land is not public as the general public is not free to make use of it. IE off roading, hunting camping and such. If the public owns it then WE shoud be able to use it if we can not use then SELL it to buyers that will pay tax on it and use it and will not cast me anything. The gooberment needs to control less not more.
I know I'm beginning to sound like a one-trick pony talking about Peak Oil on the Maine forum (really, I do), but I have to ask you phitthepwr, can you reevaluate your questions concerning the Maine Woods in light of the fact that gasoline and diesel fuel may well be $10 a gallon or even more in 5 to 10 years, that half of the gas stations we know may close, that hot mix asphalt for paving could be double or triple the price it is now, with road use tax revenue used to pay for road reconstruction down by maybe a third or more from now, that electric cars, with 1/2 the range of conventional, gasoline-powered cars aren't even going to be able to reach this new park or woods in any comfortable time frame without a couple of long, painful recharge sessions somewhere roadside, that even the passenger railroads that brought vacationers north 90 years ago don't even exist anymore, and that affordability of second homes in the area, bought and owned by people coming from a good distance, could be severely challenged as a result of all these artifacts of said Oil Decline?
I ask this because I see a major shift, after decades of increasing recreational and development pressure for the Woods, I see the North Woods becoming more INaccessible after decades of increased accessibility.
I think, for example, that Plum Creek, unless they build a major portion of their Moosehead Lake project in the next few years, that they won't ever get it built.
Second homes and development pressure is going to cease to be an issue, amazing as that sounds at the moment. I can, however, see society looking towards the forests for fuel and other biomass use, on the other hand. That could be what's really at stake going forward.
As for the proposed national park, not being "controlled by man" - I have to ask, with all due respect, just what was it that we elected into the White House two and a half years ago, if not a man?
Don't you really mean you want 1/3 of the undeveloped land of Maine controlled by 536 people in far off Washington DC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same people that have been asleep at the wheel on energy issues, other than start several wars for oil (Gulf I, Iraq, Libya), all while spending us into oblivion? You want THOSE people to own most of the remaining wood land in Maine?
No thank you. That forest is about to be needed and managed for new things by more local people, not including second homes nor a national park.
Do people even know that visits to Baxter and The North Woods have been down several years running? While I can't get my hands on a link at the moment, I know I've seen several stories to that effect. Certainly, as gas goes over $4 visitation isn't going to be up *this* year.
No. Ideally I want the land to be there, used responsibly by man. But I think it is foolhearty to think that it is outside the bounds of development. Plum Creek might be delayed, but I bet they'll be pushing back first chance they get. And there is obviously still corporate interest in the woodlands of maine... are we to believe that single wealthy individuals like John Malone have the best interests for the land and the people of Maine in mind when they swoop in and gather up a million acres at a time?
I'm not a fan of the beaurocracy. But even when gas prices soar I find ways of getting out to Baxter State Park because I value the outdoors, as do many people I know. Now, BSP isn't "owned" by anyone but it still takes three beaurocratic entities to reside over the management of the area. If it weren't for that set-up who knows what state that land would be in now. Let's also not forget that Percival Baxter wanted that area to be a National Park, it was only after he failed to garner the support for it that he set-up the trust that still exists today for BSP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
