Conservationists, we are told, may be defined by the concern they have for the kind of world they’ll leave their great-grandchildren. If that’s the case, Plum Creek Timber Co.’s plan for developing thousands of acres of Moosehead Lake wilderness should give them much to be concerned about.

Seattle-based Plum Creek, the country’s biggest corporate landowner, envisions nearly one thousand house lots, two resorts, a golf course and much more. If approved by the Land Use Regulation Commission, it will be the largest development in Maine history. It will surely send a signal for more development to follow, with the better part of 10 million acres of forests and remote ponds being the prize.

Despite support from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Plum Creek’s plan is not a happy hunting ground in disguise. It’s a bottom-line pursuit that will forever change the land of the lynx and the moose, the bear and the beaver.

Environmental groups have reacted by quickening their work on conservation easements, land swaps, outright purchases and other devices for conserving the landscape. They are often in partnership with the Land for Maine’s Future program.

Excellent work, all that, but with the exception of RESTORE: The North Woods and one or two allied groups, nobody is giving the acquisition of park land, whether state or national, the emphasis it deserves. If it’s anybody’s goal to save Moosehead Lake for the public – and not for trophy homes ringed by “no hunting” signs – do we really think it can be done without a vastly expanded park system?

The answer to that question is central to the challenge facing adversaries in the “culture war” between environmental groups on one side and the hunting lobby, the snowmobile industry and property rights advocates on the other.

Pursuing their respective agendas, what do they want Moosehead Lake and the North Woods to look like 100 years from now?

They need to tell us what they are driving at. That’s right, it’s the vision thing, carrying us beyond the politics of the moment, the next vote of LURC and the next hunting season.

RESTORE’s vision calls for a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a three-million-acre North Woods National Park. It would embrace Baxter State Park, Moosehead Lake and the headwaters of five major rivers – the St. John, the Allagash, the Kennebec, the Penobscot and the Aroostook.

The wildlife habitat and the resources it would protect – especially the headwaters – could be of incalculable importance to our grandchildren four generations hence.

In the past, Roxanne Quimby, the Burt’s Bees Inc. founder, has intimated that she might, in time, transfer her extensive wilderness holdings to either the state or federal government for parkland. There was no such intimation recently, however, when she purchased 25,000 acres of woodlands just south of Katahdin Lake, bringing to 53,700 the total acreage she owns near Baxter State Park. A spokesman for Quimby said she wants her woodlands to be “forever wild,” allowing hiking and fishing but not hunting, trapping or vehicular recreation.

Intense lobbying by organized opponents has turned mere mention of the feasibility study into a third rail for politicians and all but a few environmental leaders. Nobody is served by the shutting down of discussion, and the environmental groups never should have let it happen.

Without sacrificing their agendas in any way, they could join in support of a study to determine if a national park should be in the mix for preserving Maine wilderness.

Are proponents right in thinking that a park, keyed to a booming tourist industry, would stimulate economic diversity and job opportunities? Acadia National Park offers an example. A Michigan State University study found that the park generates $135 million in economic activity in the Bar Harbor region. It accounts for 2,300 jobs directly, and 1,100 indirectly.

Organized by the National Parks Administration, a feasibility study would include state parks and recreation people, timbering and other industrial interests, environmentalists, political leaders and most certainly local folk whose lives would be affected by the presence of a national park.

Surely a representation like that would allow sweet reason to enter this most contentious of debates. Otherwise, people 100 years from now will come up to us and say:

“You had a chance to save a corner of the biggest undeveloped wilderness in the East – and you didn’t do it. Why?”

Gordon A. Glover is active in Maine environmental organizations. He lives in South Freeport.