Poll Shows Maine Residents Support Creation of National Park, Sustainable Logging From the North Woods

Polling points to strong support for a North Woods national park in Maine.

Polling conducted for the National Parks Conservation Association shows Maine residents overwhelmingly would prefer to see their state's "North Woods" preserved as "parkland" complemented by sustainable timbering rather than dotted with vacation homes.

Seventy-eight percent of the 502 individuals surveyed by Zogby International between July 26 and July 29 said they'd prefer that less-developed vision for the picturesque lake-and-forest region in northern Maine.

From a national park viewpoint, a "North Woods" national park would correct a glaring omission in the northeastern United States, as there is no large expanse of mountains, woodlands, and lakes protected by a national park in New England. And proponents of the Maine North Woods National Park and Preserve want to change that.

In a mission that's been ongoing for roughly two decades, those behind the movement would like to see such a national park sculpted from an area of about 10-12 million acres 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. Along with protecting the landscape and the wildlife that resides there, those backing the park say it would stimulate and nurture the local economy.

With the president's America's Great Outdoors listening session coming to Bangor, Maine, today, the NPCA commissioned the Zogby survey to gauge how Maine residents feel about the issue.

Alexander Brash, NPCA's Northeast regional director, said Wednesday that his group wanted to take the pulse of Maine residents on whether and how the North Woods should be protected, or developed, going forward. Indeed, he said the idea was to try to determine whether the state's residents were open to a mixed use sort of approach to protecting the area in a fashion of its current form.

“I was certainly happily surprised that so many people were in favor of putting aside a substantial park like that. We believed it might be closer to 40-60 or 50-50, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was such a large majority," Mr. Brash said of the 78 percent who voiced support for an area of timber and lands vs. vacation homes.

“At the moment, all we’re calling for is people to take a step back from the historical polemic and understand that in the 20 years since people first proposed a big national park up there, that there have been a lot of new models, different kinds of parks that would work and which might be more satisfactory to everybody, all the stakeholders who should be involved," he said during a phone call.

Specifically, he pointed to Redwood National and State Park in California -- "Which is a piece state and a piece national and so it's jointly managed" -- units of the National Park System that are more heavily managed for recreation than preservation, and "heritage areas" that are even another step removed from the classic national park.

Regarding a mix of park land and sustainable timbering, the NPCA official said it's questionable whether the timber industry of old will ever fully rebound in Maine, and the current proposal would be economically promising.

"One of the things that we’re saying is you actually could do both. If you sort of lower your expectations to agree on the timber industry, and go to longer rotations, then you could have a kind of living landscape that would also be complemented by having some large protected area in the middle," explained Mr. Brash. "And it would end up also broadening the region’s economy because you wouldn’t be depending entirely on timber.”

Other economic drivers that might realistically arise alongside the birth of a national park would be gateway towns in the fashion of Estes Park, Colorado, outside Rocky Mountain National Park, or West Yellowstone, Montana, outside Yellowstone National Park, he said.

The North Woods, Mr. Brash mentioned a few minutes later, also offers what he sees as "the last chance for a great national park, certainly in the East, if not in the (entire Lower) 48.”

Among other questions on the survey, when asked whether they would support "a collaborative effort between public and private agencies to preserve the North Woods as a mix of protected and working lands where timber can be sustainably harvested," 53 percent said they could "strongly support" such an effort, while 33 percent said they could "somewhat" support it.

When the question hinged on whether the government should encourage sustainable forestry practices through "incentives, regulations, and tax breaks for development rights," 27 percent were strongly in support of the proposal, and 28 percent said of the respondents said they could somewhat support the effort. Fifteen percent said they were somewhat opposed to that approach, while 22 percent said they were strongly opposed.

When asked whether they could support 10-to-20 percent of the North Woods being preserved as a "public park," 51 percent said they could strongly support such a vision, and 24 percent said they could somewhat support it. But 8 percent were somewhat opposed, and 12 percent said they were strongly opposed.

Comments

Interesting. I like the idea of a interior land park in New England. This whole region used to be covered in forests centuries ago, it'd be nice to preserve a chunk of that. And the compromises would seem to ensure this could be done without causing economic hardship.

As an aside, I wonder if logging as an industry is going to be shrinking long-term. Demands for paper goods are declining in the internet age, the U.S. housing market is going to take years to recover, and green building technologies are on the rise and becoming more affordable. Perhaps some day there won't be as much of a conflict between preservation and logging.

Barky - With a program like this you can bet logging as an industry will be shrinking. It will be cause-and-effect - and it will take the New England economy and thousands of jobs with it. Many people's livelihood are on the line here.

I would be interested to see Zogby's methodology that NPCA (a federally-funded organization) was sponsoring - was it polling from the people actually from the area, or folks from Portland, New England, and beyond? How many of them have been to the region? I wish people would consider the actual stakeholders here...

Nobody is dotting anywhere with vacation homes - and there are ways to prevent excessive development without the federal government taking private land.

I would be delighted to see a new park implemented in the north woods. I spent an entire summer in those woods collecting forestry data and fell in love with the area. The natural beauty abounds and as such I can understand why it would be a popular draw for vacation homes, but I personally would hate to see that happen. I abhor the commercialization of these natural places. As a forester, I believe it is in the best interest of the marjority to use this land as a park for the management of forest resources and also for recreation.

Sounds great, but can you have a national park that also allows logging? Sounds more like a national forest to me... Would it have to be a national preserve or could it be a national park with logging?

I believe, Mike, that particular vision would have a national park surrounded by forests that are sustainably logged, not a park with logging within its boundaries. Olympic National Park, for example, is surrounded by the Olympic National Forest and from time to time you drive passed logged areas in the forest, not the park.

Also, to anonymous above, NPCA is a non-profit organization supported by membership dues and various corporate, trust, and foundation donations. I don't believe it receives federal funds.

Watched the video on their site - very nice. And I see they use the term "National Park and Preserve" presumably because of the envisioned logging (hunting?).

Also have to say it would be a nice thing for the Obama administration to pursue given that there seems to be the will to do it. It would be a nice boost especially for the left.

Mike, I believe the "preserve" tag would be attached to allow for continued hunting....

"It would be a nice boost especially for the left."

Grrrrrr, I hate the notion that preservation is purely an issue for the "left". Am really getting tired of this "us v. them" nonsense.....

Indeed, Barky, this type of effort shouldn't be labeled right or left. There are many fine conservation stewards on both sides of the aisle. And many who are not so fine, regardless of affiliation.

That's right Kurt. Let's not forget that State Sen. Lowell Barron is a DEMOCRATE who would love to see the ban on ATV's lifted in the Little River Canyon Preserve. So remember, it isn't a left or right, conservative vs liberal or Republican against Democrate issue as to who respects the wilderness more.

I didn't mean to suggest that this should be a left/right issue.

I was just trying to point out that the creation of a new park in what may be a declining region would probably be appealing to those on the left, though I see there are opponents, especially on the right, that would likely take up the cause against the park as I see already on the internet from a Google search.

There was apparently some kind of listening session in Maine that was attended by park advocates http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/Information-for-Maine-Listening-Sessions.cfm Would be interesting to hear what was said at this meeting as far as moving forward.

In any case, it sounds like the proposal lacks support from legislators at the moment.

Were any of these people polled north of Portland? I sure wasn't....

http://www.preservemainetraditions.com for an alternate point of view.