The latest study from supporters of a national park in Maine argues more forcefully than ever that a park would be an economic as well as environmental benefit. Though some of the numbers in the study seem optimistic, the responses from opponents need not be more of the same shouting that has characterized the debate so far, but, if possible, a thorough and calm evaluation of the economic conclusions on which the report rests.

In short, the report argues that setting aside 3 million acres of forestland and the natural attractions of hills and waterways will attract 1 million to 3 million visitors a year, add year-round diversity to the local economy, stem the loss of population and raise per-capita income considerably. The opposition trusts neither these conclusions nor the people who trumpet them, notably the group Restore: The North Woods.

None of the economic gains would arrive quickly, according to the report. But over the decades as land was purchased and the proposed Maine Woods National Park and Preserve expanded, development – especially high-tech businesses that like to be next to places of natural beauty with guaranteed access – would emerge and the region would leave an old economy that is leaving it in any event.

Jym St. Pierre, Maine director of Restore, says he has asked the state, the university system and the congressional delegation for years to undertake a study of the economic impacts of the proposal and has been turned down. That led him to commission Thomas Power, chairman of Economics Department at the University of Montana, to look at the issue. Mr. Power has produced a report that is calm – it hardly promises riches to be gained from a park – and has interesting comment on the working forest, trends in forest employment (with or without a park) and a park’s likely effect on state and local tax revenues, among other issues.

Yet, Mr. Power says he would not support the park based solely on his work because the study is far from complete. Instead, he proposes that the study stand as a beginning to a more comprehensive discussion of the proposal so that if Maine residents reject the idea of the park at least they will understand what they are rejecting.

We have opposed the idea of the park, believing that there are better economic alternatives, but Mr. Power’s request is a modest one and could work to the benefit of the local groups that have tried mightily to keep this part of Maine from going under economically. If the state reviews Mr. Power’s study and finds it inaccurate, then there is good reason to tell Restore to go away forever. If a review finds the study accurate, local residents and members of the business community would at least have the chance to talk about another option for development.

That is almost impossible now; anyone who says anything nice about the proposed park is immediately considered a troublemaker. Strong feelings about this land are understandable; there should be equally strong feelings about giving people a chance to test their ideas. The state should take this easy opportunity to review the data in the Power report and either verify or refute it.