The economic and philosophical debate over whether Maine needs another national park has distinctly heated up several degrees since the publication of Thomas Power’s 110-page economic analysis of the proposal. This is an intriguing development given that Professor Power’s major conclusions were not that Maine needs the park, but that Maine should keep all of its options open and that a full feasibility study of the potential economic benefits is warranted on the basis of his preliminary findings.

Clearly, Maine does not need a North Woods National Park. In the same way, Maine does not need to restore its Atlantic salmon runs. For that matter, Maine does not need clean rivers or clean air. It is already an established fact that Maine does not need resident owners of its industrial woodlands. But, all economists know that needs and wants are not the same. To deliberately confuse the two is a time-honored way to cut off debate. After all, needs are more important than wants – or are they? We may want our children to be well educated – but is it a need? We may want our children to have access to the land – but is a need? And we may want our children to have better lives than our own – but do they actually need a better life, or is it just something we want for them?

The creation of national parks, and public lands in general, has always been a matter of wanting future generations to have a little of the American landscape as we have known it. And, while important economic benefits have consistently resulted from these designations, they were never the reason for creating the parks. The benefits of a more diversified economy and increased job options for residents are merely the icing on the park cake. While Professor Power’s has documented the economic richness of that cake – its real nutritional value can be found in the sense of pride, of inspiration, of humility, and of caring for something beyond our own generation that our public parks convey – the idea that we are more than just a dollars and cents society.

Putting the Powers study in perspective, it’s nice to know that the national park designation carries an economic bonus. In fact, we probably should look at the study as something we need to know, if we choose to pursue the want of a national park. And, because our economy is driven by creating wants rather than fulfilling needs, wanting a national park for purely economic reasons actually makes a lot of sense.

Clearly, the park designation is value added to the forest in an economic sense. In fact, the benefits of park designation are not proportional to park size – the new jobs created by a one-million acre park are probably not significantly less than would be created by a 3 million-acre park. There has to be a combination of industrial forest land and park land that would result in a net gain in jobs for the region.

But, what’s the “value added” in a social sense? Developing nations around the world are creating national parks in an attempt to preserve their nature and strengthen their cultural identity – admittedly while hoping to attract tourists and emulate America’s successes. And, in the process, they are developing what might prove to be better ways of operating parks here in America. For example, the national parks of Jamaica are all run locally by non-profit corporations. The result: national parks without tax-supported employees, with local decision making, and a strong sense of ownership, all providing an improved quality of local life, new money from tourists, and protection for nature’s biodiversity.

Jamaica decided that it wanted the benefits of national park designation, and that it could have them without central management. Sound familiar? It should. The Jamaican model is almost a carbon copy of the Allagash solution. Obviously no solution comes without its own set of problems. But, there is nothing un-American about wanting the benefits both of public land and private land. Everybody wins, except perhaps the extremists!

Other nations have chosen the Great Britain model of zoned national parks, where the goal is to maintain the existing mix of land uses and land ownership to create large cultural heritage parks. Perhaps, if we can get beyond the dreaded words of “zoning” and “planning,” such an approach might work for Maine. The U.S. National Park Service currently has 20 different categories of “parks” – in fact, of its 370 units, only 50 are designated as “national parks.” It seems reasonable to assume that a 21st category, tailor-made for Maine, might be easily achievable by a congressional delegation looking for a 21st century style win-win.

The fact that the debate is heating up can only be good for Maine. This improves the chances that the real issue of what the people of Maine want for their state will be heard above the clamor of the special interests, the status-quo advocates, and those who insist on confusing needs and wants.

Will LaPage, teaches ethics and issues of park management at the University of Maine in Orono.