AUGUSTA – Rural residents Monday left no doubt about their belief that Maine’s North Woods are doing just fine without federal protection – comparing a plan to create a new national park or national forest to both American settlers’ taking land from native tribes and ethnic cleansing.

“This idea deserves to be killed and have a figurative stake driven through its evil heart. It leads to higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom,” Roger Ek, a resident of Lee, said during a State House public hearing on a pair of related bills that could help shape the future of rural Maine.

The first bill, sponsored by Rep. John Eder, G-Portland, would require that the state conduct a feasibility study to ascertain the potential costs and benefits of a North Woods park to be located near Baxter State Park.

The second, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry, would withdraw state approval – granted in the 1930s and long since forgotten – for a national forest of up to 600,000 acres in northern Maine.

On Monday, no one opposed the measure to repeal laws that few knew existed, though some raised concerns about unintended consequences for the White Mountain National Forest, which straddles the Maine-New Hampshire border. But the bill served as a preview for the passionate debate, a few minutes later, over considering federal protection for part of the state’s northern forest.

John Jaques of Portland asked Eder to introduce his bill – which was misprinted as calling for an official feasibility study for a state park, rather than a federal park – in hopes of bridging the north-south and Republican-Democrat rifts that have formed around the issue.

Jaques said a national park need not be as big as the 3.2 million-acre park supported by RESTORE: The North Woods. He just wants legislators to consider asking the state Department of Economic and Community Development to look into where and how much federal protection might be appropriate.

“I don’t see any reason why, just for philosophical reasons and this anti-federal zealotry,” the idea shouldn’t be studied, Jaques said.

During his testimony, Jym St. Pierre, director of RESTORE’s Maine office in Hallowell, spoke of the millions of acres of forestland that have changed hands in just the past six years. With investment firms and real estate developers buying up land, Maine can no longer rely on private property owners to maintain its northern forest, an area “of national significance,” St. Pierre said.

“Whatever the future of this region, it will be different from the past century,” he said. “Maine is in a very unusual situation. We have a lot of land and a lot of people scrapping over it.”

Lawmakers challenged the park advocate, questioning not only the region’s need for government protection, but also whether it is worthy of federal notice.

“I see nice little lakes, nice little woods here and there, but nothing as spectacular as what Teddy Roosevelt [creator of the national park system] saw out West,” said Rep. Roger Sherman, R-Hodgdon.

Most members of the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee revealed their strong views on this divisive issue through pointed questions.

“How much is enough land?” Sherman asked several park supporters concerning the acreage of federal property in New England.

Joanne Twomey, D-Biddeford, countered her colleague, asking St. Pierre, “How do we get across that [a national park] is a wonderful thing?”

St. Pierre spoke of the economic gains that have been realized in the communities surrounding national parks, reading from a news story in Alaska in which a rural resident stated that her beliefs had changed 180 degrees.

But he was in a distinct minority Monday as legislators, rural landowners and representatives of the forest products industry took the podium to predict the dire financial consequences of federal land ownership.

And the Department of Economic and Community Development opposed the idea of a feasibility study, citing its $100,000 to $150,000 cost.

“There’s no need to spend more of our [state] money on a study,” Ek said. “The results are in.”

Lawmakers will discuss the bills during work sessions and take votes later this spring.