Maine North Woods National Park: Has The Time Arrived?

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on October 10, 2009 - 2:43am

If you look at a map of the National Park System, you'll find a glaring omission in the northeastern United States. There is no large expanse of wilderness protected by a national park. Proponents of a "Maine North Woods National Park and Preserve" want to change that.

In a mission that's been ongoing for a handful of years, proponents behind the movement would like to see such a national park created in time for the National Park Service's centennial in 2016. The proposal calls for a park of 3.2 million acres, larger than Yellowstone National Park, in northern Maine. Along with protecting the landscape and the wildlife that resides there, those backing the park say it would stimulate and nurture the local economy.

The following video takes a look at both the landscape and the threats to it if the park proposal fails.

Send to a friend

Comments

Submitted by Joan (not verified) on October 10, 2009 - 4:48am.

I have very mixed feelings about the Maine Woods National Park. Having been born and grown up in Maine, and spent much of my life here, I would love to see our north woods preserved. But having spent a number of years in Colorado, I have also seen how the national parks bring more development and roads, and much more use. I have also seen the national parks being poorly managed, and the pressure for roads and trails leading to serious degredation of habitat. Our own Baxter State Park in Maine is much better managed for it's wilderness attributes than the national parks are, and I'd prefer to see an expansion of Baxter State Park over a national park. But, given the lack of money in Maine, and also the lack of political will, perhaps a national park is the best that we can do. In any case, doing nothing is the worst option. Plum Creek has already planned to massively develop their holdings, and other REITs can not be far behind.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on October 10, 2009 - 5:18pm.

I strongly believe that a national forest would be more user friendly than a park
I Have travelled and camped accross the US for the past 50 years ( I am 85) and find the national forest much more flexible and less restrictive than national parks.
More friendly to local residents
Less sophisticated structures
Closer to nature
possibly more economical to operote

Submitted by Kirby Adams on October 10, 2009 - 7:49pm.

The narrator says:

"If you're looking for wilderness areas anywhere near the northeast...you're out of luck; there aren't any."

What? Baxter State Park doesn't count? I'm not saying the National Park is a bad idea, but it's quite misleading to imply that only within the NPS do you find wilderness.

Submitted by James Sullivan (not verified) on October 11, 2009 - 5:17am.

I live in Maine, where you can buy a 4BR home in downtown Millinocket for $39K. I don't see anything happening in Maine that will improve the financial prospects for the owners of that 4BR property. Are the paper companies going to save northern Maine? The shoe companies? Agriculture? Hardly. A new NP would sew the North Woods with the kind of sustainable economic activity that makes Maine viable for Mainers.

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on October 11, 2009 - 6:40am.

Good point, Kirby, and then there's that other place. What do they call it? Oh yeah, Adirondack State Park.

Submitted by Kirby Adams on October 11, 2009 - 7:13am.

Kurt,

Oh, you mean the real New York? Yeah, I've heard of that!

Submitted by QT Luong on October 11, 2009 - 2:05pm.

"Large" is relative. Although Baxter State Park would it its centerpiece, the proposed NWNP would be considerably much larger. My understanding is that it would be a mixed Park and Preserve to keep some uses open. The area is going to get some development anyways, so better to have it managed by the NPS than by real estate developers. I just traveled to the area, here is a quick report about my trip to the Maine North Woods. I should have images of the area maybe next week and will post a direct link.

Tuan.

National Parks images

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on October 11, 2009 - 2:32pm.

Tuan,

Thanks for the link to your report. I'm trying to find a way to justify a trip there, but until I do I'll read as much as I can. You're right that the proposed park would contain a mixture of uses, including hunting, as I understand it. Sounds like under the proposal being pushed the park would be managed much like any other "park and preserve."

I look forward to seeing your images.

Submitted by John Oser (not verified) on October 13, 2009 - 2:04pm.

Hi Joan-If you followed Ken Burns on his television series on National Parks and how they came about--it is not too late to stop what LURC has allowed to happen with Plum Creek and its destruction of Lilly Bay and the rest of the lower end of Moosehead Lake---RESTORE and The Forest Ecology Network are pursuing a plan for a Maine North Woods National Park--I think that it should have its nexus Moosehead as well-I am not giving up and we are trying to awake others to help in the cause--I liked your note and as a former park ranger I know the care we need to take of them-Thanks John Oser

Submitted by Gabriel Sheridan (not verified) on January 1, 2010 - 12:32pm.

I think that the time for a great National Park in the North East is long overdue. The "paradise at our doorstep", for millions in the area is something future generations will be forever grateful. Every state that has ever tried to stop a national park from being created, now would never dream of being that state without it. It is an essential element of what is means to be American--that is, to have wonderful open space availble for us and the enjoyment for all peoples forever. Please count me in as one who beleives in the future of Maine and our country.

Submitted by justinh (not verified) on January 19, 2010 - 12:38pm.

Would designating the 3.2 million acres a Wilderness Area significantly limit the number of roads into the park (following the models of North Cascades and Kings Canyon National Parks)?

Submitted by y_p_w on January 19, 2010 - 4:30pm.

I think "wilderness" is thrown around rather loosely for public consumption. I suppose most people aren't familiar with the terminology of Congressionally designated wilderness. I doubt that the proposal calls for all of this area to be designated wilderness that is off-limits to roads.

As for Kings Canyon - I'm not sure there's any practical means to build more roads. Of course what's there now is considered designated wilderness so a road simply couldn't be built anyways. I'm not sure North Cascades is the best model. I thought that they didn't have a single paved road. The road leading into Kings Canyon is a pretty well-built paved road and the area has power and running water. I thought North Cascades isn't anywhere near that level of development.

Submitted by MRC (not verified) on January 19, 2010 - 5:32pm.

North Cascades is unique as the National Park covers only the lands above the road corridors. That is because the valleys with the roads are designated as National Recreation Areas (Ross Lake NRA and Lake Chelan NRA). So it is true, that the National Park has not a single road, because all the roads and trailheads are within the NRAs.

Submitted by Lou Demers (not verified) on January 22, 2010 - 9:01pm.

The first step in creating a Maine Woods National Park & Preserve is for the U.S. Congress to authorize a feasibility study by the National Park Service. Please join the more than 100,000 people who have signed our petition, requesting that congress authorize this study. You can sign the petition on Facebook at the link below. Please encourage all of your Facebook friends to sign the petition by forwarding it to them. For more information about the proposed Maine Woods National Park & Preserve, please visit RESTORE: The North Woods' Facebook page or go to www.restore.org

Time is running out to save Maine's North Woods--the largest undeveloped region east of the Mississippi River. Please take action today. With your support and help, there WILL be a new national park in Maine for all Americans to enjoy.

Sign the petition here:

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/petitions/125

Thank you!

Submitted by y_p_w on January 23, 2010 - 10:04am.

My understanding is that North Cascades has a few unpaved roads.

If there are existing roads in this proposed national park area, I doubt that they get removed. Wilderness designations often go around existing roads (I've even seen some road corridors right through wilderness areas) and there's no indication that this is going to completely be designated wilderness. If it were, there couldn't even be a visitor center or running water.

Submitted by Peter (not verified) on February 17, 2010 - 7:36pm.

The North woods will not make a good national park. There is nothing special in the north woods that is not already in conservation. When you talk about Greenville they need the development. It will be good for them to have a few resorts and maybe an expanded ski area. This would bring more people to the area. If you turn Greenville into a kind of North Conway you will see the area benefit. If you try to do a land grab and just hope that people who fish, hike, and sightsee will keep places like Greenville and Milinocket going it will fail. Those people already go there. To get people to travel a day to see that area you need something special. There is nothing up there that is that amazing. The white mountain national forest has Mt. Washington that you can drive up and even stay right there at Mt. washington hotel. You can ski on both sides of the mt. washington valley and golf in the area. In northen maine Katahdin is really not visitor friendly and is already open to the public and it has never helped millinocket. Imagine if you went to acadia on the maine coast and got to the entrance, they then tell you that you need reservations to go in the park and cannot drive to the main atrractions. The visitors would dwindle down to nothing. You need easy access to the best areas. The state and enviromentalist have tryed to make so the best areas are hard to get to and enjoy which causes less visitors. I live in southern maine and I will go to mt. washington and hike it one day, play a great game of golf the next and have some great choices of food. The wife can shop at all kinds of stores and enjoy easy access to some spectacular waterfalls and vistas. All that is hard to find in the maine north woods. This is what will destroy the chances for the north woods. If Greenville was like north conway you may see the area boom and then see the places north of it get even more conservation chances.

Submitted by Kirby Adams on February 18, 2010 - 8:57am.

If Greenville was like north conway you may see the area boom and then see the places north of it get even more conservation chances.

Perhaps, but I would think the opposite. Allowing resort development in one area and presuming it will lead to conservation of similar areas is like throwing a slice of bacon at a tiger and expecting him to be sated and ignore the unprotected corral of hogs twenty feet away.

Submitted by justinh (not verified) on February 18, 2010 - 9:10am.

Peter said: "If you try to do a land grab and just hope that people who fish, hike, and sightsee will keep places like Greenville and Milinocket going it will fail."

Of course, history tends to show the opposite. "Land grab"? Really? Do developers not grab land?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 17, 2010 - 4:59pm.

Baxter State Park isn't designated wilderness. Also they are looking at amount of areas in the Northeast run by the National Park Service, Department of Interior. Yes there is White and Green Mountain National Forests but the U.S. Forest Service is under the department of agriculture, which has a different objective than the department of interior. Also it would be millions of acres compared to a few thousand. As for some other coments made by other people it would be Maine Woods National Park & Preserve which means the designated preserve would still be open to many recreational activities like fishing/hunting, snowmobiling, ect... The main purpose of this park isnt to keep locals and recreationalists out its to put a stop to development. Also to the guy that says hes been all over the park service and they destroy the units with roads and buildings, well clearly you havnt been to the back country of the parks and havnt been to Gates of the Arctic National Park, Kobuk Valley National Park, Noatak National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. These 5 parks are home of the most pristine wilderness in the entire United States. For the guy that they'res too many regulations and its hard to hike in the backcountry in the National Parks... Well not all of the parks have many regulations and not all of them require the purchase of a backcountry permit.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 12, 2010 - 8:12pm.

It is not just a park. Please go to: http://takingliberty.us/
This is happening all over the country. Sounds good - isn't good. If you have doubts, PLEASE investigate on your own. People are waking up.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 23, 2011 - 11:05am.

Not trying to be rude people, but being a young logger in the North Maine Woods, this would mean no cutting as I understand it. This would have unforseen consequences to you guys. I am one of thousands of hard working men that would lose their jobs. Sure, Plum Creek has done foolish things in the past, and Irving Woodlands sometimes does extensive clear cutting, but Irving has invested billions of dollars in their land. We are not trying to cut our way out of our jobs people, but take it from a logger such as myself, think about us. This would have dire consequences if this happened.