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.
Interesting, Coaster. If this is true it goes in direct contrast with what a few conservation groups are touting as the percentage of protected land. The number I've heard several times over is just 2% of Maine land is protected. I don't have enough definitive evidence to know what to believe right now... do you know where I could view a map like one you are talking about?
Do conservation easements automatically continue with the passing of ownership from one party to another, or does that become part of the purchasing negetiations?
The 2 percent number refers to federally owned (Acadia and the section of White Mountains National Park in western Maine) and state-owned parks, which are distinct from, for example, Maine Public Lands. It's the number Restore uses to mislead people. It has no bearing whatsoever on the total amount of protected land in Maine -- which as it turns out is far more than even I suspected. A 2008 UMaine report put the total protected land in Maine at 3.67 million acres out of 21.25 million total, with 55 percent protected by easements versus fee ownership. For a more detailed breakdown, go to the "Summary Report (8/2008)" at:
The map you want does exist. One version can be found in the "Cronan Power Point Presentation" at the bottom of the above link. I don't think it's complete (the Pingree Family conservation lands appear to be missing, for example), but it at least gives you a start.
Conservation easements, in Maine at least, are permanent protections on property and pass with the deed. When some entity -- a state agency, a local land trust, or an environmental group, for example -- acquires a conservation easement, they usually pay for it. They are buying the development rights to the land. That affects the future value of the land when it's sold to a new owner.
coaster admits:
"I don't know where you get the "few islands of private property" line."
I get it from a Maine Forest Service map. I have a really big one and several smaller copies. I also have their maps of paper company land from 1970, 80, 90, 2000 and 2010.The pictures tell the story.
Again, NMLM, you said "private property," not "paper company land." The million acres Malone bought was and remains private property. All the acreage of the Pingree Family holdings are private property. Plum Creek, Hancock, Clayton Lake Timberlands, Huber, Robbins Brothers, Wagner, the list is endless. So where do you get the "few islands of private property"? It's more accurate to say there are a few islands of publicly owned land in a sea of private property.
ETA: NMLM, I assume you have a political agenda at work here, but why do you insist on making claims that are so easily disproved? It just hurts your arguments.
You're making the mistake of thinking that Great Northern was still the Great Northern of the 1950s and 1970s, the paternalistic Maine-centric company that cared about its forestlands, maintained them with the future in mind, and supported its community. That company died in the 1980s and 1990s, along with all the others.
I'm making the mistake of living in the Katahdin Valley Region during the time in question. Knowing the mill managers, the mill workers, and seeing with my own eyes what happened to GNP. My mistake is believe what my senses were able to glean from my environment. I notice you have no explanation why the BDN...hardly a right wing newspaper...seemed to be on GNP's side of the argument. And reading what was in that editorial 25 years later, does it not give you some pause as to what happened? Seems like Paul Reynolds must have been a fortune teller!...or else the cards were stacked against the paper industry in Maine. Don't try to convince me, I wasn't at any hearings. I was in the woods working my fingers to the bone!
Yes, GNP made the corporate decision to bail from Maine and sell their water rights and land. I'm not going to waste my time proving you wrong about the water rights, but I'm willing to wager at least half of GNP's dams that were producing power in the 80's are not licensed now.
Malone seems to be a good citizen who intends to keep most of his land open to traditional use such as ATVs, snowmobiles, hunting and fishing. Most of the list above contains lands contaminated by conservation easements and the citizen example I mentioned above is precluded from buying a couple of acres for a camp.
Irving has no paper mills in Maine. I have an agenda, but it can no longer be addressed in the political arena. That horse went of the barn with the passage of LD2286. It's too late.
Are you really under the impression that land in a national park won't be controlled by man? What force is going to control the land in this park of not man?
What has John Malone done to cause you to distrust him? What changes are being made to the land that you don't like? Are you familiar with his management plans for the 980,000 acres?
How are we going to afford to pay for another national park?
What's your plan for replacing the jobs that will be lost?
What's your plan for replacing the resources that are currently being responsibly harvested?
Maine Writer,
I asked this question originally for two reasons. 1) I am curious to know what others are thinking and what factors influence those decisions. From this I hope to further my own knowledge of the situation. I am, usually, open to changing my views when in light of learning; if what I learn broadens my perspective, so be it. (BTW, as I interact within this forum certain avenues of thought, and details of information are challenging me to gain a fuller understanding of the situation as I continue to shape my views. For those of you who have shared info and perspective, thank you.) 2) I wish to share my opinions as well.
You responded to my intitial post and questions with a question of your own, and since you are a senior member here I obliged you with my answer. Since then you continue to question me without adding your opinion, answering any questions that I ask, or providing any information you may have. So I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on this or do you just want to interview me? I don't, nor am I trying to pose as a guy with all the answers, hence I ask questions. But I also have opinion and the willingness to open up that opinion to others even if that means I am disagreed with, even proven wrong.
If you do have views and information that are relevent you have my attention...
And in a good faith effort I'll answer your latenst round of questions.
1 & 2: I have an inherent distrust of the super-elite. Malone is among them and for this I view him with what I know is a biased view... but it is still my opinion. He is apparently a very private man and I haven't encountered any direct information from him about his plans for the land he's aquired in the state. There are some things I've read from his lawyers and spokespeople that suggest he wants to be "a good steward of the land." It is disheartening to me though, that he does not come out and say it himself. The PPH mentioned that the citizenry of the King's Land area wished he would meet with them to discuss the purchase of over 500,000 acres he made there- but this did not ever happen to the best of my knowledge.
3: I don't know how we pay for another park. I have been operating under the assumption that a National Park comes with National funding. This is an issue I will certainly be looking into as I am curious. Do you know what expenses Mainers will certainly face in direct correlation with another NP?
4 & 5: There is a lot of timberland in maine, I would think that even with a large area protected there would be enough to support the jobs that exist within. Perhaps this assumption is incorrect and perhaps not. This also makes me think of the idea of a National Forest rather than a NP. Wouldn't a NF ENSURE that industry is being conducted in a responsible way. Massive clearcutting has occured in the past. Why should we believe that it won't occur unless we have assurances.
I'm making the mistake of living in the Katahdin Valley Region during the time in question. Knowing the mill managers, the mill workers, and seeing with my own eyes what happened to GNP. My mistake is believe what my senses were able to glean from my environment. I notice you have no explanation why the BDN...hardly a right wing newspaper...seemed to be on GNP's side of the argument. And reading what was in that editorial 25 years later, does it not give you some pause as to what happened? Seems like Paul Reynolds must have been a fortune teller!...or else the cards were stacked against the paper industry in Maine. Don't try to convince me, I wasn't at any hearings. I was in the woods working my fingers to the bone!
Yes, GNP made the corporate decision to bail from Maine and sell their water rights and land. I'm not going to waste my time proving you wrong about the water rights, but I'm willing to wager at least half of GNP's dams that were producing power in the 80's are not licensed now.
Bingo! Why did papermaking in Maine become vulnerable to the forces that led to its decline? All of them came from outside Maine. When the day came in the 1980s when a newspaper in Chicago could buy newsprint from Indonesia for less than it could from Wisconsin, much less Maine, I knew the industry here was doomed. When international financier Sir James Goldsmith bought Diamond International and sold off the pieces for far more than he spent for the entire company, I knew the days of paper company land ownership were coming to an end. The dams and the state laws didn't matter.
My father retired from the St. Regis mill in Bucksport. He was really happy he left while it was still St. Regis.
None of the land John Malone recently purchased is in northern Maine but what I'm saying does relate to conservation and why we don't need another national park in Maine.
Quote:
If you do have views and information that are relevent you have my attention...
My views on the subject have been stated on CD many times. This is brought up two or three times a year. We're always saying the same thing over and over. I am interested in what others think and how they think this could work out to be a good thing. I always wonder if people have done adequate research, including talking with people who would be adversely affected by a national park, to be able to make an informed opinion. Without correct information, opinions are like Jello - shaky.
Please don't feel like you have to oblige me because I'm a senior member. All that means is that I hang out here too much instead of working. Like right now...
Quote:
And in a good faith effort I'll answer your latenst round of questions.
1 & 2: I have an inherent distrust of the super-elite. Malone is among them and for this I view him with what I know is a biased view... but it is still my opinion. He is apparently a very private man and I haven't encountered any direct information from him about his plans for the land he's aquired in the state. There are some things I've read from his lawyers and spokespeople that suggest he wants to be "a good steward of the land." It is disheartening to me though, that he does not come out and say it himself.
He did. There are interviews in Forbes and press releases that quote him.
Bangor Daily News, “My interest in land conservation is well known and this pending land purchase in Maine will further enhance these efforts,” Malone said last week. “I intend to continue the forestry operations consistent with prior practices.”
He's well known in Colorado for his work in conservation.
Quote:
3: I don't know how we pay for another park. I have been operating under the assumption that a National Park comes with National funding. This is an issue I will certainly be looking into as I am curious. Do you know what expenses Mainers will certainly face in direct correlation with another NP?
National funding comes from us, the tax payers. I don't know what Mainers would pay up front. The loss of jobs would be costly not just for those who work in the woods but for everyone and everything that indirectly benefits.
Quote:
4 & 5: There is a lot of timberland in maine, I would think that even with a large area protected there would be enough to support the jobs that exist within. Perhaps this assumption is incorrect and perhaps not.
It is an incorrect assumption. My husband is a wood buyer for a pulp mill. He usually buys 65% of the wood going into the mill but is currently buying 100%. Buying enough wood is a constant battle. When this mill started buying hardwood over the winter another mill suffered. With only 57 growing days per year on average for trees, there's little time for trees to grow before they start putting down energy to get through the other 10 months of the year.
Quote:
This also makes me think of the idea of a National Forest rather than a NP. Wouldn't a NF ENSURE that industry is being conducted in a responsible way. Massive clearcutting has occured in the past. Why should we believe that it won't occur unless we have assurances.
We have assurances. We have laws. A tree cut in Fort Kent has a paper trail from the land owner to the logger to the mill and back through the chain to the land owner. When we pass a loaded truck my husband (the wood buyer) knows where that wood came from if it's going to this mill just by knowing who owns the truck and who's driving it. There's a lot of detail that goes into this industry.
We have state parks and a national park open to our use already. We're not lacking for land to hike, hunt, fish, ski, snowshoe, camp, etc. We have John Malone with 980,000 acres of land that is already being conserved, is open to the public and is going to continue to be responsibly harvested. There are conservation easements in place already that ensure something as simple as a camp isn't going to be built. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that anyone needs a national park in northern Maine or that anyone is lacking anything in life because there isn't one now. Maybe someone will come up with something to change my mind, but based on facts, I doubt it.
Maine Writer,
I asked this question originally for two reasons. 1) I am curious to know what others are thinking and what factors influence those decisions. From this I hope to further my own knowledge of the situation. I am, usually, open to changing my views when in light of learning; if what I learn broadens my perspective, so be it. (BTW, as I interact within this forum certain avenues of thought, and details of information are challenging me to gain a fuller understanding of the situation as I continue to shape my views. For those of you who have shared info and perspective, thank you.) 2) I wish to share my opinions as well.
You responded to my intitial post and questions with a question of your own, and since you are a senior member here I obliged you with my answer. Since then you continue to question me without adding your opinion, answering any questions that I ask, or providing any information you may have. So I have to ask: Do you have an opinion on this or do you just want to interview me? I don't, nor am I trying to pose as a guy with all the answers, hence I ask questions. But I also have opinion and the willingness to open up that opinion to others even if that means I am disagreed with, even proven wrong.
If you do have views and information that are relevent you have my attention...
And in a good faith effort I'll answer your latenst round of questions.
1 & 2: I have an inherent distrust of the super-elite. Malone is among them and for this I view him with what I know is a biased view... but it is still my opinion. He is apparently a very private man and I haven't encountered any direct information from him about his plans for the land he's aquired in the state. There are some things I've read from his lawyers and spokespeople that suggest he wants to be "a good steward of the land." It is disheartening to me though, that he does not come out and say it himself. The PPH mentioned that the citizenry of the King's Land area wished he would meet with them to discuss the purchase of over 500,000 acres he made there- but this did not ever happen to the best of my knowledge.
3: I don't know how we pay for another park. I have been operating under the assumption that a National Park comes with National funding. This is an issue I will certainly be looking into as I am curious. Do you know what expenses Mainers will certainly face in direct correlation with another NP?
4 & 5: There is a lot of timberland in maine, I would think that even with a large area protected there would be enough to support the jobs that exist within. Perhaps this assumption is incorrect and perhaps not. This also makes me think of the idea of a National Forest rather than a NP. Wouldn't a NF ENSURE that industry is being conducted in a responsible way. Massive clearcutting has occured in the past. Why should we believe that it won't occur unless we have assurances.
In response to the funding of the park. it would be national funding. There isn't enough money to fund the parks we already have. There is no money to create or operate another national park.
In response to the funding of the park. it would be national funding. There isn't enough money to fund the parks we already have. There is no money to create or operate another national park.
I must say, I'm not sure why this aspect doesn't seem to be understood.
No money is no money. As Maineah said above - when people are paying large sums of money just for gas to head north, it's a foregone conclusion that until the economy gets much better, there won't be much 'demand' for get-a-way trips to the woods.
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.
