Maine’s enthusiasm for the “Land for Maine’s Future” bond is an encouraging sign of the state’s strong conservationist values, and the program has undoubtedly preserved some remarkable properties. At the same time, however, a sense of defeat pervades the entire concept. After all, these crucial lands in the north woods and along the coast have been preserved for generations in the care of individual stewards who relied on their natural resources as a way of life.

For years, Maine’s economy relied directly on the land and the seas, which provided the raw materials for almost all of the state’s industry and commerce.

But in the late 20th century, the possibility of commuting 50 miles by pickup truck, summer vacationers who would pay millions for coastal property, and cheap wood and food from the global economy made the bounty of natural resources in our own landscapes seem less important.

Farms, forests, and fisheries together still produce the majority of the state’s income (as well as a good portion of its recreational and scenic assets), but Mainers are being pressured to sell these resources off at an unprecedented rate to suburban developers.

The land bond was a politically agreeable reaction to this problem, but it’s not the best solution by any means. By participating in this real estate market, the government has raised public demand for ecologically valuable lands has also raised prices and fueled the flames of speculation even higher. Last year, conservation buyer Roxanne Quimby bought 24,000 acres east of Baxter State Park. But in the same sale, 47,000 acres (including the spectacularly scenic Katahdin Lake) went to two other buyers, and together the three successful purchasers outbid the state, which had offered to buy the whole 71,000 acres at once.

Urban economists have shown that publicly owned parks and wild areas boost property values for nearby homeowners.

Assuming this phenomenon holds on a larger scale, we can expect that as the state buys more land for public use, development pressures will only increase on private lands nearby.

The land bond’s strategy of buying lands outright may offer some success in the short term, but it will be part of the problem in the end.

Instead, the state ought to consider stronger regulatory solutions.

A good start might be to zone forestlands and working waterfronts as places where residential development is strictly forbidden.

Unlike the land bond, this solution wouldn’t cost a cent to Mainers. Reducing property taxes, which currently act as an incentive for subdivision, is another good idea.

These are merely preliminary suggestions. Foresters, farmers, conservationists, and fishermen will all need to engage in an open evaluation of the threats to Maine’s landscapes, and of the tools at our disposal to address those threats.

The ultimate solution will need to protect not only Maine’s wildernesses and coastline, but also the natural-resource industries that have been these lands’ oldest stewards.

Christian McNeil, originally of Steep Falls currently lives in Bean’s Purchase, N.H., where her works for the Appalachian Mountain Club.