Secretive ‘Backcountry Project’ Threatens Access to Wilderne
- Login to post comments
Part one of a three-part series
By Rep. David Trahan
For years, a bloodless but passionate battle has raged between land-use advocates inside the walls of the State House. The fighting pits two opposing camps. There are those of us who value our wild lands for such "traditional" uses as hunting, fishing and snowmobiling. On the other side those who desire that Maine's backcountry be conserved and free from all human activity.
In an editorial published 25 years ago by the Bangor Daily News, entitled Speaking for Maine, editor V. Paul Reynolds wrote this: "Too many important decisions affecting all of Maine and its citizenry are being made in the Augusta vacuum. This is especially true of decisions that are rife with political overtones. Small, vocal coteries of Augusta-savvy activists are constantly visiting their voguish views upon government and convincing decision-makers that they speak for Maine. This is so much rubbish."
Reynolds made this statement in defense of allowing snowmobile access on the perimeter road in Baxter State Park.
The results of these wars can be seen across the state with victories on both sides. Last March, Allagash-area residents revolted against environmentalists and wilderness advocates. Locals claimed they were being driven off their traditional access sites by elitists. The battle reached such a pitch that the Legislature responded with a new public law "“ LD 2077, An Act to Make Adjustments to the Allagash Wilderness Waterway.
The new law guaranteed that the historic local traditions of boat access, vehicular use and timber harvesting would be ensured as part of the future Allagash management plan. The Department of Conservation (DOC), along with a host of environmental organizations, united to oppose this important legislation, but in the end they failed to deny Allagashers access to their own backyard.
Again, during the recent Katahdin Lake debate, the DOC joined forces with state Attorney General Steven Rowe and environmentalists to object to hunters and snowmobiles on all of the proposed 6,000 acres of new state land. Against that backdrop, the Legislature crafted a compromise. It banned hunting and snowmobiling on 4,000 acres around Katahdin Lake, which the state hopes to acquire as part of the Katahdin Lake Land Transfer Bill, while allowing them on an adjacent 2,000-acre tract that is part of the same land transfer.
In the shadows of these two battles, DOC was quietly developing a potential new state policy with implications that could reshape the Maine landscape for advocates of traditional access. On March 22, 2006, in a letter addressed to Commissioner Patrick McGowan, State Rep. Rod Carr and I requested information on a newly created stakeholders group within the department called "the Maine Backcountry Project."
What we received was a list of the committee membership and the minutes from their first meeting. The committee consisted of 26 members representing environmental or wilderness organizations and the DOC. Seven of these organizations were from out of state. Some of the high profile groups included the Sierra Club, Maine Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
According to the minutes of that first meeting, the goal of this committee was to "review various backcountry parcels of land that may be available and that should or could be considered for management as wilderness." There was discussion about "re-wilding," "eco-reserves," and "places identified for protection based on ecological values rather than human, social, or recreational values."
Twenty-four special places from all corners of Maine were identified for purchase and protection. They ranged from the Kennebec Highlands to the White Mountain National Forest. They also included coastal islands and the Saco, St John and Roach rivers. Nearly every place one might identify as having unique natural beauty was included.
It was revealed in the minutes that the project was being funded by a grant from a Boston-based group "“ the Kendall Foundation "“ and was scheduled to last one year. The Kendall Foundation website lists the reasons for the $100,000 grant. It is meant to pay for "support for professional staff to advance and implement conservation land acquisition projects across the State of Maine."
Much of the first meeting was centered on the themes of the "human-powered experience," the need to establish statewide standards for "non-motorized wilderness management," and the "need to segregate user groups into motorized and non-motorized."
The meeting concluded with discussions about the potential size of these protected areas. Several members responded with estimates ranging from 24 acres to areas that would require two-day trips to traverse. Cathy Johnson of the Natural Resources Council of Maine stated her preferred size was "Baxter State Park."
It is not hard to imagine why Representative Carr and I were concerned with the secretive nature of this committee, as well as the very controversial policy discussions occurring with no participation by members of Maine's traditional access community.
After learning of the existence of the Maine Backcountry Project, we met with DOC Deputy Commissioner Karin Tilberg and several of her staff within the Bureau of Parks and Lands to discuss our concerns.
We stressed our objections to these meetings in Department of Conservation facilities, without public notice, as well as the one sided make-up of the committee. We were assured that members of the "other" user groups would be contacted.
As one might expect, Tilberg downplayed the significance of the Backcountry Project. She went on to explain that the DOC was just trying to map out places in Maine that could be marketed as a wilderness experience. We were told that the project was small and was nothing more than an attempt to showcase Maine as a destination for non-consumptive outdoor recreation.
If only that were true.
To be continued in part two, Squeezing Out Traditional Users. ###
Rep. Trahan is one of the three strongest arguments against term limits - two others would be Rep. Dave Bowles and Sen. Paul Davis.
Trahan and the others you mention are heroes in Maine. This whole thing is happening so rapidly that the average Mainer has no idea that our state is being taken away from us, even private property owners. We all MUST get involved. Hooray for our heroes who are doing their best for us.
This article was printed in the Downeast Coastal Press on Tuesday. We are hoping for the other two in the series.
It was also mentioned at the regional meeting in Addison Wednesday on Rep Ted Koffman's (D-Bar Harbor) DEP landgrab.
What exactly are McGowan's qualifications to be the commicssioner of the Department of Conservation? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that he's a blatant political hack. The deputy commissioner's career, as I understand it, has been with the Send Us Your Money To Save The Last Great Whatever sector.
The fact that people with no experience managing natural resources would be chosen to head up an agency as important to the state of Maine as the Department of Conservation reflects poorly on Baldacci. He needs to go back to the House of Representatives where he can just blend in with the crowd. An executive position requires leadership skills.
Hopefully Woodcock will put an end to this nonsense.
I would strongly addvise all of the American people get and read the "Wildland Project" and believe what it says. The groups mentioned above are working hard to rewild half of the United States. We have been warning the Maine people of this for over ten years now. Groups like the Snownobilers Association and SAMS disagreed with us and worked with the enemy. When or have they awoken up to the facts that Maine is being cut in half and the Northern half is to be depopulated.
Bud
While I can agree with much of what has been said, especially about Baldacci appointees' qualifications (how about the Deputy Commissioner of IF&W??), and the secretive nature of this committee, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a discussion regarding the setting aside of areas for non-motorized recreation, especially now that ATVs are becoming more popular. Nothing frosts my toast more than hiking into a once-remote trout pond for a "wilderness" experience, only to find that some knucklehead has cut an ATV trail into the pond and left behind a bunch of empty worm containers beside what is supposed to be a fly-fishing only pond. And it's almost always the "locals" who decide that this is perfectly fine to do in "their" back yard.
And some of the locals I've met in my travels upcountry are proud to show me their fishing gear (blasting caps, etc.) or the beautiful deer they've shot (all in velvet!!). I'm an avid hunter and fisher who loves the outdoors but who can also do without the noise and smell of engines. There's room in this great state for everyone, and not every piece of state-owned land needs to be open to every possible use.
There's room in this great state for everyone, and not every piece of state-owned land needs to be open to every possible use.
Agreed. I am a big fan of BSP and was in strong favor of the Kahtadin lake compromise. The "Backcountry project" goes too far.
Democrat, and how will it be when you have to walk to everything above Route 2?
Bud
a fly-fishing only pond
Interesting designation, this fly-fishing only. When are we going to see some spin-fishing only ponds? Or maybe some bait-fishing only ponds?
Or how about some ATV only lands, instead of hiking only?
Democrat, and how will it be when you have to walk to everything above Route 2?
Bud
Or, maybe when route 2 is returned to it's primitive state, we will have to walk it also...and don't forget the visible corridor that will have to be protected around it so they hikers wont see any signs of civilization.
Even thousands of years ago, Peebles says, "Route 2 from here to Maine was …" She pauses to find the right word. "…Route 2." The course was and is the best way to travel east and west through this territory, all the way to what is now Maine. It was a sort of prehistoric interstate.
Source
Even green activist, perennial candidate, op-ed gadfly Nancy Oden is publicly taking a stand against secretive, special-interest government in Maine that is producing law after law that transfers the rights of property owners by fiat to state bureaucrats—flouting the Constitution and "taking" huge financial and other assets away from landowners. At a DEP public meeting in Machias last night, she joined hundreds of Down-Easters in castigating the process that put LD 1981 into law this year—the emergency bill amending the Natural Resources Protection Act restricting development and ceating 250-foot setbacks on waterfront the state deems "shorebird areas" as well as upland "wading bird areas" and other habitat designation, with the "vernal pools" designation coming on board within two years.
"There should have been more public discussion on this proposed law so that people would know what it was about," said Oden. "Then, when all sides had their say and their questions answered, the question should have been put out for referendum in the next election, since this is an issue of great importance to Maine people."
Even green activist, perennial candidate, op-ed gadfly Nancy Oden is publicly taking a stand against secretive, special-interest government in Maine that is producing law after law that transfers the rights of property owners by fiat to state bureaucrats—flouting the Constitution and "taking" huge financial and other assets away from landowners. At a DEP public meeting in Machias last night, she joined hundreds of Down-Easters in castigating the process that put LD 1981 into law this year—the emergency bill amending the Natural Resources Protection Act restricting development and ceating 250-foot setbacks on waterfront the state deems "shorebird areas" as well as upland "wading bird areas" and other habitat designation, with the "vernal pools" designation coming on board within two years.
"There should have been more public discussion on this proposed law so that people would know what it was about," said Oden. "Then, when all sides had their say and their questions answered, the question should have been put out for referendum in the next election, since this is an issue of great importance to Maine people."
And which "Maine people" have the right to gang up on a minority of property owners and take their land? For all her outrage against the arrogant viro organizations who pulled this stunt, Oden herself is advocating eminent domain without calling it that. She wants people to support the DEP rules and then have the state pay the landowners. Eminent domain vs. Greenline regulatory takings -- in which they leave you with the deed and the tax bill and they have all the control without paying for what they steal -- is a false alternative. But Oden thinks that property owners "cannot be trusted" and says that allowing us to keep and use our own property is "anarchy".
Her advocacy of paying property owners for what the viros steal is ironic since the viro lobby has adamantly opposed any compensation for regulatory takings, including under the Endangered Species Act. Their stock "talking point" line is that property owners "should not be paid for following the law", glossing over the small detail that viros have captured the coercive power of government that was supposed to protect our rights. In the name of "law" they want bureaucratic rule for social control and expect us to submissively respect their power grab.
I'm sure the BDN won't publish this series, but all Maine voters need to read these articles. It's riveting information. I await parts 2 and 3.
- Login to post comments
Crap like this fries my bacon!!!