Recently someone posted our “sign petition” link onto a New England hunting  forum bulletin board.  A couple of the responses there were rather shocking, one of which was – why should we be concerned about this, hunting is allowed in National Parks.

So, just to clear up some obvious misconceptions, here is what the NPS has to say about that, taken directly from their website www.nps.gov -

“Most  National Parks do not allow consumptive use of the resources, such as hunting, trapping, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction.”

What about a National Monument? – we have been hearing that word lately from park proponents – again, directly from the NPS -

“Monuments are essentially under the same guidelines as a Park.”

Perhaps there is some confusion surrounding Park nomenclature – there is a link here to the NPS website that explains their names and what they mean.

That is not to say there are occasional exceptions to the rule – the permitting process for which would be akin to visiting your local DMV office.

Think of it this way – To casually wave off concerns of freedoms within a National Park would be analagous to saying the following;  we’re going to take a city just like what is on Manhattan Island and plop it in the middle of the North Maine Woods – we think it would be great for business and the economy of the region…..and the resulting uproar being dismissed with – yeah, but I’ll still be able to camp there.  Maybe you “could” – but the experience would never be the same.

The same for snowmobiling – remember, Park proponents may say all kinds of things that may be ‘allowed’ – but once the land is handed over, all of that goes out the window, and it’s the NPS’s word from then on.  Sure, you can answers “yes” to the statement that snowmobiling is allowed in some Parks – would it be the same as it is now on the ITS trails? Absolutely not.  Both in Acadia and Yellowstone (which seems to be the most cited Park for sleds) it is restricted to tarred roads within the Park – that’s the precedent.  As far as snowmobiling goes – preservationists have been suing for years with varying degrees of success to have snowmobiling stopped in Yellowstone.  There are so many rules and regulations it boggles the mind – is that what you want for Maine?  I don’t, and I don’t even own a snowmobile – but I respect the rights of others to recreate as they see fit – and someday I may want to get a sled and ride the trails of Millinocket.  See the link here and do a search for yourself on the lawsuits to keep sleds out of Yellowstone.  They will keep at it and at it until one of these days, they’ll win.

Just because you can answer “yes” to a question does not mean the experience will be the same, or even close to what we have now.  The area of the proposed Park is historically a consumptive use area.  In Park Planning 101 the first thing they teach you is you don’t change the traditional use of an area to create a Park.  A National Parks rules will effectively stop the historic activity of the region, which is why Roxanne herself has said it could take many many years to attract visitors to the Park…because the historic use of the area would be changing – is that what you want for Maine?  Think carefully about your answer.

NOPARKFORME

Please visit preservemainetraditions for more information.

What IS the big deal?  What’s the harm?  We all want the facts right?   Sounds fair enough?

Before going any further along this post, please read the National Park Service Critera for Parkland

There is a glaring omission from this lengthy page outlining criteria for Parkland.  Did you find it?  Have a guess?

Here is a hint from the article;

To be feasible as a new unit of the National Park System an area’s natural systems and/or historic settings must be of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to ensure long-term protection of the resources and to accommodate public use. It must have potential for efficient administration at a reasonable cost. Important feasibility factors include landownership, acquisition costs, access, threats to the resource, and staff or development requirements.

Still don’t see it?

Lets put some of the bigger pieces of the puzzle together in a Readers Digest condensed version.   First, as you may or may not know,  Restore:The North Maine Woods arrived on the scene here in Maine in 1992 with a big plan to start a 3.2 million acre National Park.  Roxanne sat on the board of Restore, and split with them in about 2004 when it became evident that support for a National Park was simply not there in Maine, nor did they have a plan for the land acquisition.  She then began quietly (sometimes not so quietly) purchasing pieces of the property that were in the original Restore plan.  There was a vision at one time (2004)  to make Monson the gateway community to the proposed Park which you can read about in a great press release here. On or about 2007 the US economy began its downtrend, the Millinocket mills eventually closed, and in 2010 Roxanne was appointed to the National Park Foundation Board of Directors.  Restore called it a “unique set of circumstances”  and pushed with renewed vigor for a National Park. The pieces were all in place -The Wolf at the Door was ready to finally pounce on it’s prize.

But the window of opportunity was short lived.  The mill re-opened, the State Legislature voted overwhelmingly against a feasibility study as did the towns of Millinocket and East Millinocket.  Maine’s Senators and Representatives have said they will not support the Park without the majority of Mainers behind the idea, especially local approval.

Which brings us back to the question at the top of the post.  The glaring omission is LOCAL impact. The only thing a feasibility or reconnaissance study will show is whether or not a Park is feasible for the area, period.  It will not assess the impact to the local community.  And if proponents get the study, they’ll get the Park.  The study is also not done by an independent entity encompassing the local impact, rather it is done by the National Park Service which, where I come from,  is called a conflict of interest.

So, we’ve seen in previous posts what can happen to states with large amounts of Federal Land, some Real Facts and Real Fears about National Parks, including the fact that they never stay the same size after inception.  They always grow, and proponents are deliberately misleading you to say otherwise.  We’ve seen what the economic impact will really be in Economics 101 and the jobs that will be lost should a National Park in the region become a reality.  Proponents have claimed that a  National Park will take people off welfare and yet we’ve seen what the Welfare statistics are surrounding Acadia National Park, and that most National Parks do not hire the local population.

I find it amusing that proponents think this message is anti-government in nature, nothing can be further from the truth, it is a pro-Maine message.  We have been such good stewards of the land in the first place, which is why it’s there for preservationists to want to protect.  The land was open and accessible for ALL to use, not just a select few, until Roxanne bought it and put up gates.  You can read more about issues surrounding access here and here.

Why would you want to give that land away?

John Malone one of the largest landowners in the US, and Maine understands the need for both conservation and the continuation of a working forest and traditional access; He intends to keep the land as a working forest, aides said, and will continue to supply timber to local paper mills and keep the land open to the public for recreation.  And as Frank Janusz directly put it; Frank Janusz, the owner of the Airline Lodge and Snack Bar in rural Hancock County, where much of Mr. Malone’s new land is located, had just returned Friday from grooming 40 miles of snowmobile trails.“Without the snowmobile business, six to eight people would lose their jobs right here,” he said, adding that access to the land was critical. “We’d die without it,” he said.

We can, and should, explore other options to preserve the integrity of the land, and yet continue to allow access for EVERYONE, both recreational and employment related.   With the way people feel here in Maine, proponents owe it to us to do just that.

It’s amazing to me that proponents are stuck on the notion that the Forest Industry here in Maine is a dying industry, as nothing could be further from the truth.  There is a ‘must read’ story  here where  In Westbrook, we are producing World Cup soccer shoes and Gucci jackets out of Maine paper.  In Old Town, our pulp mill is producing jet fuel.  Composite wood, liquid fuels and sugar from trees are being researched at the University of Maine, while Europeans are eyeing torrefied wood, so-called wood coal that they can burn in the existing fluidized bed coal power plants. Sawmills are toughing out a housing recession, yet the projected 60 percent increase in annual allowable cut in spruce/fir over the next 20 years, not to mention the rising volumes of white pine, all bode well.  On the news just this morning there was a story about exporting cedar log cabin kits to China.

How embarrassed will you be if Maine creates a big National Park, and ends up having to import it’s wood at a higher cost?

The town of Millinocket has never marketed itself, we need to give them a chance to do so, and they have a plan in place to begin that, which you can read about here

There are alternatives that allow Maine to financially prosper from it’s unique forestland, while conserving that land in parallel.  It’s what we as a State have done for generations, and we’re pretty good at it.  It’s why the land is still there.  Proponents should be exploring these options instead of forcing their will on the people of Maine whom have continually told them no.

The people behind this website are fighting for their way of life, their livelihood, their backyards, and their traditions.  They’re spending their own money, and their own valuable time to get the message across.   They actually care about Maine’s future and Maine’s woods, not a legacy or a non-profit success.

And that’s the big deal about a feasibility or a reconnaissance study.  It will not include the local impact, which will be an impact that is detrimental to the future of the State.  We can do better.

Think.

Please visit preservemainetraditions for more information.

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

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 – land conservation easements, land trusts, 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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 can but we need your help!
To Forever keep it at Bay!

Note:  written in opposition to the proposed National Park in Northern Maine.

You can find more information here.