National park idea should be discussed

When I read the story about the panel discussion on the proposed Maine Woods National Park sponsored last week by the Action Committee of 50 (BDN, Dec. 14), I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

The national park idea is one of the most important economic proposals for northern Maine on the table for consideration. Moreover, a resource economist with national credentials, Dr. Thomas Power, recently prepared a comprehensive economic analysis of the park proposal. So it makes sense for a Bangor area business group to sponsor a serious discussion about the park concept and Dr. Power’s economic impact study.

But wait. Was the author of the study invited to address the group? No. Was anyone who could accurately describe the park proposal invited? No. Was anyone who supports the park proposal invited to be on the panel to provide some balance? No. Is it surprising then that the panel was critical of the park proposal and the economic study? Hardly.

Conservation commissioner Ron Lovaglio’s credentials as a resource economist are rather slight. In fact, he has no academic degrees or experience in the field whatsoever. Dave Field of the University of Maine admitted that he had not even read the study by Dr. Power. Enough said about the credibility of his critique. If the news report is accurate, resource economist Lloyd Irland’s evaluation of the study amounted to saying that tourism development is attracted to communities near attractive areas. Curiously the two examples he cited, in Boothbay and New Hampshire, are nowhere near any national parks. Which proves that sprawl is not a park issue; it is the result of poor growth management by towns wherever it occurs.

Everyone I have spoken with who read the article has commented how ridiculous it is to sponsor such an obviously lopsided panel. Someone pointed out that the panel sounded a lot like the court room scene in the original “Planet of the Apes” film where a trio of orangutans convicts the human before telling him the charge or allowing any defense. Then the three chimps pull the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” routine.

There is an economic revolution going on in the Maine Woods. More land has changed ownership in less time than in the past several hundred years. And, yes, it makes a difference. Look at what the new owners are doing. J.D. Irving of New Brunswick, which owns more land in Maine than anyone, is interested in building new bridges over the Allagash, our most beloved wilderness river. Wagner, which controls more land than in Maine than anyone, is selling camp lots on remote lakes. Plum Creek is developing an 89-lot subdivision around First Roach Pond. The list could go on and on.

Meanwhile, more forest industry jobs are evaporating, more lands are being closed to public access, and the wilderness qualities that distinguish the Maine Woods from every other place in New England are being exterminated. Green certification, beauty strips, and easements will not save many of the public values long cherished about the big woods in northern Maine. Only public ownership will. But don’t count on the state. Except in Baxter State Park, state policies will preserve some working forest, but not wilderness.

I appreciate the publicity boost given to the Maine Woods National Park proposal by the Action Committee of 50 panel last week. However, the people and the lands of northern Maine deserve better than a kangaroo court. The economic report by Dr. Power is the most in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the national park proposal to date. Let’s have a thoughtful, fair, and balanced discussion about the benefits and costs of the park idea.

Jym St. Pierre is Maine director of RESTORE: The North Woods. He has a master’s degree in natural resource economics from the University of Maine.