New National Park in Maine...

[Stan]

... No national park will be created over the objections of the people who live there.

Another example of one created against local objection is Guadalupe National Park where hard feelings still run deep. We didn't see it, but then, we didn't see much that could be called local ... it is really big country. The objection, I believe, was related to grazing and perhaps resource rights. It can happen and, if you are opposed to a national park in the North Maine Woods, the old saw about "eternal vigilance being the watchword of liberty" applies.

... Throw in the large blocks of lands covered with development easements around the state and there is a whole lot of land already protected, just not to the extent that some folks would envision. ...

... Anyway, does anyone know why they're proposing a National Park instead of a National Forest? ...

Some folks envision maximum federal control over everything and everyone and a national park offers maximum control over land.

Here are a couple of related links from right here at VFTT for anyone seeking more background.

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21167&highlight=national+parks+Maine

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5997&highlight=national+park+Maine

 

[David Metsky]

I'm not saying that's going to happen in Maine, but apparently it can be done. Or at least it could in 1980.

Exactly. It could have been done in 1980; it can't be done now. The backlash from an established community like in Maine would be able to kill any proposal in Congress.

Anyway, does anyone know why they're proposing a National Park instead of a National Forest? I agree with Peaks that a Forest sounds like a more realistic and less antagonistic approach.

National Forests are run by the Dept of Agriculture, and would include lots of managed logging. RESTORE is trying to prevent logging in much of the area. I don't think it really meets the goals of the organization.

 

[brianW]

I would like to see "open space" protected but at the same time i would rather see it being protected by the community it is in NOT by the federal goverment. I do not care if this area is in Maine, Alaska, or any where else.

 

[TrailwrightBratt]

Feds

WOW: Roy, never thought you would say that the feds do not have money. Just let the grand kids pay for it like everything else and since when did not having money stop them lately?That is what I thought you would say. Of course I say this with tongue in cheek!And I agree with you completly.

 

[Sheomet]

I'm a huge fan of snowmobiling and hunting and spent many hours enjoying those activities in the Northern Maine forest when I was living in Maine. I'll leave it at that.

 

[NewHampshire]

I don't understand why it has to be a National Park. Why not a National Forest like the Whites, or a State run entity like the Catskills or ADK's. Creating an entity like that and developing it for tourism would have the two fold benifit of allowing the current form of commercial income (logging, etc.) to continue, but now the added bonus of tourism money. I know one could say "well, what is the difference with what we have now?" and they would be correct. But by giving it a fancy name it probably would have a psychological effect of making people want to go.

Brian

 

[RoySwkr]

I don't understand why it has to be a National Park. Why not a National Forest like the Whites, or a State run entity like the Catskills or ADK's. Creating an entity like that and developing it for tourism would have the two fold benifit of allowing the current form of commercial income (logging, etc.) to continue, but now the added bonus of tourism money.

Stopping logging is usually part of the prime motivation for these proposals - many of these people don't want logging in National Forests either.

I'm not even sure that some of the proponents even want tourism but more like a nature preserve.

Disagreement over the end result is an issue with such a park.

 

[rup]

Judging from the map, BSP would be enveloped, but not subsumed, by the NP??