If you look at a map of the National Park System, you'll find a glaring omission in the northeastern United States. There is no large expanse of wilderness protected by a national park. Proponents of a "Maine North Woods National Park and Preserve" want to change that.
In a mission that's been ongoing for a handful of years, proponents behind the movement would like to see such a national park created in time for the National Park Service's centennial in 2016. The proposal calls for a park of 3.2 million acres, larger than Yellowstone National Park, in northern Maine. Along with protecting the landscape and the wildlife that resides there, those backing the park say it would stimulate and nurture the local economy.
The following video takes a look at both the landscape and the threats to it if the park proposal fails.
Comments
Perhaps, but I would think the opposite. Allowing resort development in one area and presuming it will lead to conservation of similar areas is like throwing a slice of bacon at a tiger and expecting him to be sated and ignore the unprotected corral of hogs twenty feet away.
Peter said: "If you try to do a land grab and just hope that people who fish, hike, and sightsee will keep places like Greenville and Milinocket going it will fail."
Of course, history tends to show the opposite. "Land grab"? Really? Do developers not grab land?
Baxter State Park isn't designated wilderness. Also they are looking at amount of areas in the Northeast run by the National Park Service, Department of Interior. Yes there is White and Green Mountain National Forests but the U.S. Forest Service is under the department of agriculture, which has a different objective than the department of interior. Also it would be millions of acres compared to a few thousand. As for some other coments made by other people it would be Maine Woods National Park & Preserve which means the designated preserve would still be open to many recreational activities like fishing/hunting, snowmobiling, ect... The main purpose of this park isnt to keep locals and recreationalists out its to put a stop to development. Also to the guy that says hes been all over the park service and they destroy the units with roads and buildings, well clearly you havnt been to the back country of the parks and havnt been to Gates of the Arctic National Park, Kobuk Valley National Park, Noatak National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. These 5 parks are home of the most pristine wilderness in the entire United States. For the guy that they'res too many regulations and its hard to hike in the backcountry in the National Parks... Well not all of the parks have many regulations and not all of them require the purchase of a backcountry permit.
It is not just a park. Please go to: http://takingliberty.us/
This is happening all over the country. Sounds good - isn't good. If you have doubts, PLEASE investigate on your own. People are waking up.
Not trying to be rude people, but being a young logger in the North Maine Woods, this would mean no cutting as I understand it. This would have unforseen consequences to you guys. I am one of thousands of hard working men that would lose their jobs. Sure, Plum Creek has done foolish things in the past, and Irving Woodlands sometimes does extensive clear cutting, but Irving has invested billions of dollars in their land. We are not trying to cut our way out of our jobs people, but take it from a logger such as myself, think about us. This would have dire consequences if this happened.
I understand your concern compeletely. I've noticed it with all the Parks I've been to as well. But I think several roads and developed areas are better than thousands of acres of deforested land.