Do you favor a $50,000,000 bond issues to purchase public lands and easements statewide from willing sellers for conservation, water access, outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, wildlife and fish habitat and farmland preservation, to be matched by $25,000,000 in private and public contributions?

In 1987, supporters of the Land for Maine’s Future program had to counter attacks on the proposal without the support of a successful history to make their case. Twelve years later, the attacks are still out there, but Maine’s experience with LMF makes them as insubstantial as black flies in November. Like the voters in ’87, who overwhelmingly supported the program, voters this year should reinvigorate it by enthusiastically backing Question 7.

The evidence for supporting this measure is awesome and statewide. It is in spectacular purchases like the one at Mount Kineo on Moosehead Lake, popular spots like Sebago Lake Beach and recreational opportunities like the 53-mile stretch of Bangor and Aroostook right-of-way between Washburn and Van Buren. But as demonstrated by recent sales across Maine and the state’s inability to protect pieces of special importance, new bonding authority remains essential, as does the requirement that matching private and public funds be used to extend the life of the program. This clear need, along with the proposal’s emphasis on water access and farmland preservation, has won new supporters, as has its focus on projects of local or regional significance.

Still, this hasn’t stopped the “what-ifs” What if this is just a way to establish a national park? What if land is taken by eminent domain? What if what happened at Sears Island happens to land purchased with this bond?

The national park spin is rebutted not only by the dozen or so of groups that oppose the park but support the bond, by the prohibition in the original LMF statute from buying commercial timberland specifically for that reason and by the fact that the proposal requires the purchases to be open to hunting, fishing and trapping. This is not the plan of the national park supporters; it’s the best-case scenario of Maine traditionalists.

The eminent-domain question is largely theoretical because it never has been used under the LMF program. For good reason. The only ways to invoke it is either with the cooperation of the landowner, which may happen during title disputes, or if the full Legislature agrees that it is necessary. That’s a high standard.

The Sears Island what-if isn’t much of an issue, either. About two years ago, after the state bought the island, Searsport noted the growing number of squatters setting up shelters there and asked the Department of Transportation for help. The DOT mistakenly put up a gate that closed the island to cars and people. That lasted about a day and a half, when the DOT discovered — with the help of prodding from the public — the mistake and again made it accessible to pedestrians. Now anyone can drive across the causeway to the island and then hike from there (a popular loop is about 5 miles around). If anything, Sears Island is an example of how much control the public has over state land programs.

New what-ifs pop up as soon as the old ones are put to rest. What if the LMF board decides to buy up Northern Maine? What if it grants money to a land trust and then a municipality wants to use that land? On and on, the what-ifs get more speculative with time.

What isn’t speculative is LMF’s excellent record, its solid support from a wide range of interest groups and the need for Maine to have the opportunity to protect special parts of the state. That’s what voters will consider and should support in the voting booth. And there are no what-ifs about that.