Wild recreation

Not wilderness and not just another park, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway has been defined by what it is not for as long as it has existed. Is it any wonder that Maine’s Department of Conservation is having a hard time finding a person willing to risk a career by filling the vacant job of waterway manager?

All three previous managers, dating back to the waterway’s opening in 1966, have left under duress and the next one will likely follow without a substantial change in public and government understanding of why the waterway exists. The conflict over how the 92-mile preserve is to be used is imbedded in its founding and, as chronicled Saturday and today by reporter Susan Young, the passage of time leaves the conflict undiminished.

There are any number of reasons for disagreement over the Allagash, but they very often flow from three questions that could be roughly characterized like this: What is wilderness? Where on the line between wilderness and park does the Allagash fall? Where should it? These, or something very much like them, have been the source of chronic rancor over what many people would agree is one of the most tranquil spots in Maine.

Early documents aren’t any help in sorting out the matter. A 1965 state proposal for managing the Allagash said, The area shall be administered … in such a way as to preserve the unique character and natural beauty of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, primarily as a wilderness recreational experience … Exactly what is a wilderness recreational experience depends on which word you emphasize. The modifier primarily is a mischief-maker in its own right. Current statute is no better, with its emphasis on the development of the natural scenic beauty and the unique character of our waterways, wildlife habitats and wilderness recreational resources … What does it mean to develop wilderness recreational resources?

Conservation Commissioner Ron Lovaglio last winter issued the waterway’s first management plan, which took three years and seven rewrites to assemble. No side, naturally, was happy with the result, which generally limited motorized recreation but officially opened a controversial point of access at John’s Bridge, between Churchill and Eagle lakes. The plan, like the waterway’s manager, will be second-guessed endlessly until a clearer sense of the Allagash emerges.

The Legislature can help. Not by trying to pass a lot of laws, but through a resolution that spells out which direction it would prefer to see the waterway take. The resolution, of course, should be proceeded by ample public comment, but in the end, lawmakers, representing the public interest, should state their preference and leave no doubt about whether the waterway should be allowed to become wilder or emphasize greater access.

Future lawmakers and administrations could and probably would disagree with whatever position this Legislature takes, but at least the public would have the opportunity to understand Maine’s attitude toward the Allagash before trying to change it. The state might even attract a waterway manager who eventually could retire from the position.