You are here

Traveler Poll: Should President Obama Designate A National Monument In Maine's North Woods?

Share
Lobster Lake, Maine, copyright George Wuerthner

Debate over whether President Obama should use the Antiquities Act to designate a national monument on land owned by Burt's Bees heiress Roxanne Quimby has grown heated in recent weeks/Sunset on Lobster Lake by George Wuerthner.

Much attention has been focused recently on Maine, where there's been great public debate over whether Burt's Bees heiress Roxanne Quimby should give the federal government 87,000 acres of her own land for a unit of the National Park System. Do you support, or oppose, the proposal that calls for President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to designate a national monument on that land?

“The land in the North Woods area proposed for donation absolutely fits the National Park Service’s criteria for national park sites, including suitability, feasibility and national significance. There is no other representative landscape like the North Woods in the national park system,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said earlier this month after touring the lands the Elliotsville Plantation, Inc., wants to donate to the park system.

Not everyone is for the park, though, and some local officials have grown weary of saying "no" to it.

“No governing body has recommended or wants this park or monument, not on any level,” the Bangor Daily News quoted Millinocket Town Councilor Michael Madore as saying during a public meeting with Director Jarvis. “This would be in our backyard. We ask that you please let this go, finally.”

The North Woods project has changed drastically since it was initially broached back in the 1990s. At that time, supporters wanted to see a national park of more than 3 million acres, or roughly a third again as large as Yellowstone National Park. Strong opposition led to a significantly downsized vision, one that has even lost the "National Park" cachet in favor for the somewhat lesser "National Monument" attribution. The change is part of a strategy that would allow President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to designate the monument without congressional action, something not considered likely at this point.

Comments

I have not already voted on this poll, but it is indicating that I did.   Please check your software.   I am in complete support of designating this land a National Monument in Maine.  Northern Maine needs to diversify its livelihood and the rest of the world needs to visit  and experience the beauty of the northern Maine woods. 


Public ownership preserves; private ownership destroys.


Ditto what Diane Friese said.


OK, thanks for pointing that out. We've asked the tech to look into it...


Thanks for fixing the voting software and thanks for conducting this poll.


Again, I have never voted in this poll, but it says that I have voted. I think the idea of a park in the Katahdin region is inspired. This magnificent piece of nature will inspire many others, draw an appreciate audience and prove endlessly valuable. Some locals might not know how lucky they are yet, but they'll find out.


 

I definitely hope that President Obama uses the Antiquities Act to designate a Maine Woods National Monument in northern Maine adjacent to Baxter State Park.  I hope that if he does this, that eventually the Maine Woods National Monument will eventually be upgraded to become a full-fledged national park and then expanded in size so that it can become a large national park.  I also am hoping that in addition, wilderness protection will be conferred to this area so that the national park will be conferred maximum protection.  Part of the area could be designated a national preserve so that activities like hunting, snowmobiling, etc. not allowed in a national park could be allowed there.  That would be a win-win for everyone.  I also hope that if a large national park and wilderness area does come about, species which formerly resided in this area but have since been extirpated like Gray Wolves, Mountain Lions, Wolverines, and Woodland Caribou can be reintroduced and thereby make that area ecologically whole once again as has happened to Yellowstone National Park since Gray Wolves were reintroduced in the park back in 1995.  Should all this transpire the way I hope it does, I am sure that most of the local people and politicians who are now opposed to the idea of a national park or national monument will come around to support it because I am sure that a national park in northern Maine will also help to diversify the economy and create jobs as well as protect the area's ecology.  

 

 

 

\\


How about respecting the people that actually live there.  It's their lives that will be changed.  Real stuff!  Enough already!

 


A recent poll shows 2/3s of Maine residents want a Maine Woods National Park.


Could you link that poll?  


So 2/3rds of the 2nd district, not 2/3rds of all of Maine.  Also your article says the actual survey was linked but I didn't see that link.  


Look at a map of the 2nd District, EC. It's about 80 percent of Maine.


And less than 50% of its population.  Looking at Moore, it appears to be a pollster for higher to create the desired results (as are most polls) and influence opinion.  Their self description:

Moore's research has helped hundreds of clients win campaigns, sell ideas and develop communications strategies.

Again, is a link to the survey available?  How did they pick the 500 surveyed?


See if this link doesn't help, EC. More surveys, but statewide, with question listed:

http://www.nrcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LD1600attachments.pdf

A survey done in October 2011 found that Maine people supported a feasibility study by a 2:1 margin. Most recently, a survey done in October 2015 shows that Mainers now support establishment of a new National Park by a 3:1 margin. Support for creation of a new National Park and National Recreation Area extends across all demographic groups.


Thanks Kurt.  Adding the National Recreation area in the question certainly helps the numbers.  Nevertheless, I would be opposed.  I fear NP or NRA status would bring far more development and more restrictions than the current status, not to mention stretch the budget.


Someone mentioned  that the Quimby land could be donated to Baxter State Park. Sounded like a good ideea to me and less controversial.


Some points in response to comments:

- The reason the poll results in Maine's 2nd District are emphasized is that the proposed monument is in the 2nd District, the district is conservative politically, and the major congressional opponent of the monument -- Rep. Bruce Poliquin -- represents that district. The fact is that opponents, even in northern Maine, are a vocal minority. Numerous polls over the last 20 years have consistently shown statewide public support for a national park or monument in the Maine Woods. Here is a summary of poll results from 1997 to early 2015: http://www.restore.org/Maine_Woods_polls_summary_20150428.pdf

- Cost is not a legitimate issue. Roxanne Quimby proposes to donate the land and she has pledged $40 million for an endowment. That is half of the endowment of Baxter State Park, which totally supports the state park's operations. Baxter park is more than twice the size of the proposed monument.

- Regarding development and restrictions, local communities badly need new economic opportunities. The monument would be protected from development, but there could be some in gateway towns, which would be welcomed by most local people. A national monument would not create any new restrictions, because these lands are already managed as they would be as a monument.

- Adding these lands to Baxter State Park is not likely for three major reasons:

* First, the state does not want to add lands to the park. The boundaries are based on the vision of former Governor Percival Baxter, and the lands he was interested in are already in the park. Moreover the Baxter Park Authority does not want the additional expense, because it depends on its endowment, which was donated by Governor Baxter. Plus, current Governor LePage hates public lands and would more likely want to get rid of Baxter State Park, rather than expand it.

* Second, the Quimby family does not want to add these lands to Baxter Park. They want the "brand" of a national park/national monument, which will bring more visitors, new businesses, and additional jobs. Baxter Park is little known outside Maine, so expanding it would do little to expand the local economy. To many people in the area, one of the most convincing arguments for a NATIONAL park or monument is that they will help to diversify and stimulate the local economy.

* Third, if the lands were proposed to be added to Baxter Park, it would not eliminate controversy. When Governor Baxter first proposed to donate his lands to become a state park, he met bitter opposition from the same kinds of people who oppose the national monument. They want to keep these lands open to logging and other exploitation and they are ideologically opposed to public lands. These people may piously claim that they would support a Baxter Park expansion instead, but if there were a real expansion proposal on the table, there is no question that they would be just as opposed to that as to creating a national monument.


The monument would be protected from development,

In what way?  There would be no roads, no campgrounds, no bath and shower facilities?  No visitor centers, no museums, no cafeterias?  It would indeed be a unique unit of the NPS system.

I would just note, it is Zion, Yosemite, Arches et al that people are complaining are crowded, underfunded and suffering misuse.  I don't hear that today about the North Woods.  


EC,

There would be no roads, no campgrounds, no bath and shower facilities?  No visitor centers, no museums, no cafeterias?  It would indeed be a unique unit of the NPS system.

I was talking about industrial development, such as logging, roadbuilding, cell towers, pipelines, wind power facilities, mines, vacation homes, resorts, and other current or proposed uses that are allowed in almost all of the Maine Woods. The proposed national monument would have recreational infrastructure, but it would be modest. That is the case with almost all newer National Parks, such as Biscayne, Capitol Reef, Congaree, Gates of the Arctic, Great Basin, Guadalupe Mountains,  Saguaro, and Voyageurs.

It is Zion, Yosemite, Arches et al that people are complaining are crowded, underfunded and suffering misuse.  I don't hear that today about the North Woods.

 

Zion, Yosemite, and Arches do suffer from crowding. This is one of the reasons why we need to expand the National Park System -- to create new parks that are more accessible to more Americans. The reason why the Maine Woods is not crowded is because relatively few people want to visit a "working" landscape degraded by logging, logging roads, and other industrial activities.


few people want to visit a "working" landscape degraded by logging, logging roads, and other industrial activities.

Sorry Michael,  I have walked through these lands and find them far from degraded.   If that is her goal, prevent degradation, she can put the land in a trust, let her endowment fund it and prevent any of the activities you fear.  No need to get the feds involved at all.  


EC,

Sorry Michael,  I have walked through these lands and find them far from degraded.   If that is her goal, prevent degradation, she can put the land in a trust, let her endowment fund it and prevent any of the activities you fear.  No need to get the feds involved at all. 

Well, I guess we have different definitions of degraded. Yes, the forest is growing back, but it is seriously damaged by decades of logging and roadbuilding. In fact, one of the prime arguments that opponents use to oppose the park idea is that it is "cut-over" forest that is nothing special.

I am not saying that this logged forest is unrecoverable. Baxter State Park was almost all logged over, but it is lush today, after decades of recovey. Shenandoah was farmland before becoming a national park and now it has recovered enough for parts to be designated as wilderness. But under "working forest" management in the Maine Woods, the trees rarely get past 40-50 years old, which is far from a natural forest. They are getting ready now for the next spruce budworm cycle, with plans for large-scale pesticide spraying and clearcutting. This left a moonscape over much of the area during the last cycle in the 1970s and 1980s. This forest needs to be protected to regain its natural integrity.

Regarding leaving lands in a private trust, this is no long-term guarantee that it will be pertected in perpetuity. The National Park Service is 100 years old. There is no private organization or individual landowner that has strictly protected 2.2 million acres -- or 85,000 acres -- of land for 100 years. The Nature Conservancy could undergo a hostile takeover and decide to sell off all its lands. Federal ownership is the best assurance of strong, long-term protection.

Of course, you neglect to mention one of the major reasons for a national monument -- it would benefit the local economy. Keeping the land under a private trust will do little to help the economy. No one has ever heard of The Nature Conservancy's 180,000-acre St. John River Forest, because it is privately owned and much of it is a "working forest" that is logged, just like the rest of the Maine Woods. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/m... This area would be a fantastic national park and it would bring major economic benefits, unlike the minimal benefits from logging operations (most of which is done by Canadian loggers).


In fact, one of the prime arguments that opponents use to oppose the park idea is that it is "cut-over" forest that is nothing special.

 And one the primary arguments for it is that it is "the wildest unprotected lands in the Northern Forest" that needs to be preserved.

In order for a location to be considered for designation as a national park it must possess unique natural, cultural, or recreational resources. The proposed Maine Woods National Park exceeds this criterion with the following priceless characteristics:

http://www.mainewoodsnationalpark.com/the-park.html

The largest unprotected wilderness in the eastern United States.

Wildlife habitat for moose, black bear, brook trout, and a number of endangered species such as the Canada lynx.

The greatest concentration of remote ponds in the Northeast.

Expanses of northern hardwood and evergreen forest.

Home to the headwaters of five significant rivers: The Allagash, Aroostook, St. John, Kennebec, and Penobscot.

The largest inland water, Moosehead Lake, within one state in the East.

The Appalachian Trail's Hundred Mile Wilderness section.

Important cultural features, including ancient Native American and early logging era sites.

The wildest unprotected lands in the Northern Forest, which the federal-state Northern Forest Lands Study found to be a region of national significance.

Regarding leaving lands in a private trust, this is no long-term guarantee that it will be pertected in perpetuity. A land trust is bound by the terms of its "trust" and the trustees (unless empowered by the original trust document) can't suffer from a hostile takeover or sell off the land at will.  In contract, Congress could tomorrow remove NPS designation if it so chose - as it has in the past.

Well the only way it wouldn't be in a Land Trust would be to break the law.

 it would benefit the local economy. 

Ignoring the fact it is not the role of the NPS to help local economies, it is not an incremental gain. You may help the economies around Monson but those visitors were likely to be going somewhere even if North Woods wasn't a NP.  You yourself suggested North Woods would take pressure off other parks, so Monson's gain would be Cody's loss.  Not that I believe that will happen.  More likely the North Woods visitors would come primarily from other eastern recreational facilities including public and private parks.  But again Monson's gain would be at the expense of the communities around those other facilities. 


Dear Mr. President Barack Obama:

Please, please, please exercise your powers within the Antiquities Act to create a National Monument from the land that the Quimby Family will donate.

I have emailed you before on this. I am a former Everglades and federal Wildlife Biologist, who was born and raised in Maine and who once traversed that entire North Maine Woods as a young Wildlife Technician.

The paper companies and forest management companies are eventually going to sell all of their northern Maine land holdings. Virtually all of northern Maine is owned by them. The people own only about 7% of the north woods. I believe that because of the juxtaposition of the northern Maine forest to the scores (perhaps hundreds) or millionaires that reside within the northern end (New York, New Jersey, etc.) of the America's eastern seaboard, when the land tracts are sold, these millionaires will buy them. And then that land will be posted, excluding the very people who enjoy the hunting, fishing and snowmobiling and who are against the creation of the monument/park.

You see, these people who are against the creation of the monument do not trust Ms. Quimby's motivations. Yet, her son, Lucas St. Clair has assured them that they will be able to hunt, fish and snowmobile on at least a portion of that land. It seems to me Mr. President, that these people are exercising the old axion...."Cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Governor Paul LePage has told us that he is unwilling to agree to any land bond money at all. So Mr. President, the only way that this land can become public land is if you act unilaterally to create this monument.

I live in southern Maine, but was born in Maine, unlike many of those in northern Maine who migrated to there. I roamed those woods and worked those woods as a Wildlife Technician....long before many of them arrived here. I am now in my 68th year. I am asking you to please create this National Monument so that it can one day become a National Park. The people of northern Maine will one day see the light and be glad for your decision.

Thank you.

Robert King

https://itsaboutnature.smugmug.com


Thank you, Mr. Kellett and Mr. King for your excellent posts.  And thank you, too, Esteemed Comrade for your long list of reasons why this area should be a park.

Let's hope Mr. Obama finds the right stuff to do what's right not only for the Maine Woods but also for Bears Ears here in Utah.


Add comment

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.