Plum Creek’s offer worth considering

I feel that it is time to voice my own personal thoughts, theories and feelings with regard to the so-called Plum Creek proposal. I will preface my comments by stating that I am very much a property rights advocate.

Our country was developed by people who had vision for the future and legal documents were crafted to be sure that people are treated fairly. Considering that these documents were written more than 200 years ago, it would seem they have stood the test of time with few changes. That is visionary.

I recall the Roach Pond proposal and hearings that were associated with it. I recall in one of the sessions how one of the Kokadjo residents felt that the property was pristine and unspoiled and therefore, should not allow any development. To me, electricity and pavement do not constitute pristine, however, someone “from away,” coming here to settle from a more metropolitan setting, might consider those lands to be pristine.

Natural beauty still abounds in these areas even though there are development opportunities for those who can afford it.

Plum Creek is a real estate investment corporation. They do answer to a board of directors who represent the shareholders, whom I suspect are interested in being profitable. A few years ago people were up in arms over the way the two previous landowners were clear-cutting the region and leaving nothing but death and destruction in their paths.

People, mostly non-natives to the area, got upset because of the widespread clear-cutting practices. They said that it was unsightly and would cause permanent irreversible damage to the ecology of the region. Between the economy, rising fuel costs, labor cost increases and the inhospitable nature of state government with regard to business, companies were forced to literally cut and run.

Most of this was caused by people in disagreement with the way the forests have been managed. The only alternative available was for the companies to sell out and relocate to a place where they were more welcome.

I have actually been to Georgia and toured some of Scott’s plantations. The climate is more hospitable there and so are the people.

The people and the government are why Maine is losing in most all arenas regarding the forest industry.

The Millinocket area is extremely depressed and The Northern isn’t there to pay the bills anymore.

Plum Creek wants to offer to the people easements in perpetuity which would allow folks the ability to traverse most of their properties at any time. I believe these people have a vision and have looked at the larger picture. Allowing traditional uses for this vast area is most certainly a good thing.

Access to the region in itself does, and will continue to offer a living for those hearty enough to endure the lifestyle of the region. We need to be allowed to earn a living here.

Structured, planned development will perpetuate economic development for the region. More services will be required and that equates to more jobs for the locals.

The gates operated by North Maine Woods are there for a reason. Without them the north country would be a free-for-all as it was many years ago. There are still visible signs of environmental abuse from those days and I’m not talking about the logging companies.

I am referring to those who think that it is their birthright to be able to travel and use and abuse the forests in any way they choose. I totally support the gates and a fee system.

I travel frequently and have to pay to use wild lands elsewhere, be it desert in Arizona or swamp in Florida. It costs money to maintain these roads which will continue to be maintained by the landowner if their proposal is embraced. If not, then we get back to the private land situation where Plum Creek or any other landowner legally has the right to close their forests permanently to the public, only maintaining roads necessary to the wood harvesting operations.

I am hearing many disturbing comments from people who have very little idea what is involved in living in these forests. There is no bad side to this offering.

“Not in my back yard” is becoming a phrase that bothers me tremendously.

I know former land developers who moved here for the lifestyle. It was all right to cut, clear, develop where they came from, but not in my back yard here.

Times are changing and sometimes change is difficult to accept, but we cannot have it like it was 20 years ago when there were few large landowners and everything was wonderful. Today, society has changed and people “from away” are and will continue to craft our future.

My final comment is this and one that I hope all in opposition to Plum Creek’s offering will take very seriously. If people continue to try to intervene with tactics like some other conservationists have used, I suspect that Plum Creek will soon be in the wholesale real estate business with little regard as to how the general public feels about it, and rightfully so. It will be too late to do anything at that point.

This is change, no matter how you feel about it. The alternatives are a lot less appealing.

As a landowner, would you allow some truly uninformed people to dictate to you how you will manage your land?

I have had the privilege of owning property in the northern forests for 35 years and am willing to embrace these changes. I would encourage you not only to accept these changes, but to embrace the opportunity for this region that is clearly in need of help.

Paul Arno Fichtner III owns Penobscot Lake Lodge Inc. in northwestern Somerset County – Township 3, Range 5.