Henry David Thoreau, in “Ktaadn,” an account of his hike to Katahdin in September 1846, described the Maine woods this way: “The evergreen woods had a decidedly sweet and bracing fragrance; the air was a sort of diet-drink, and we walked on buoyantly in Indian file, stretching our legs.”
Some of the folks who live adjacent to the proposed national park don’t like businesswoman Roxanne Quimby’s plan and want to keep the land for traditional forestry, timber and pulp industries. Quimby’s supporters say we should embrace the inevitable transition toward a more sustainable tourism-based economy, especially in the wake of five Maine paper mills shutting down in the past three years.
Big changes — such as the establishment of a national park — are pretty much always messy, typically with a small and vocal opposition to change and the uncertainties associated with it. But history shows us the parks are adored by people from everywhere, who bring their tourist dollars and create huge economic benefits. We shouldn’t let the fears of the locals stop the changes that benefit everyone. It’s called progress.
Historically, Republicans generally have fought the establishment of every single national park, even though people from around the world agree our national park system is one of the greatest American innovations.
Many studies — thoroughly replicated — have shown that national parks provide an economic boost to the areas surrounding the parks, providing a large return on a small investment. These economic benefits are not subject to paper price fluctuations or foreign competition.
Many opponents of Quimby’s plan, such as Gov. Paul LePage and U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, say they don’t believe national parks create jobs and economic prosperity.
Poliquin has asked the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources to hold a meeting with Quimby’s neighbors to hear once more from the naysayers — even though the president alone has the authority to add national monuments through the authority granted under the 1906 Antiquities Act. This executive power rankles some lawmakers who oppose the federal government’s control of public lands.
Yet here in Maine we have many asking why this private person, Quimby, should not be allowed the liberty to do what she wants with her privately owned land.
While it may seem odd that some of Quimby’s neighbors think the government should refuse to accept her gift, it is probably not surprising that there is local opposition. Almost every proposed park faces local opposition. The first national park in the world, Yellowstone, was initially opposed by many who lived nearby. It was established in March 1872. Now, Yellowstone is an economic engine that powers the whole region surrounding it. Acadia also was opposed by many of the locals.
Thank God for those who listened to the optimists rather than the naysayers.
What makes Quimby’s Maine woods proposal unique is that much of the opposition comes from people who used the snowmobile trails and private hunting camps that the paper companies allowed people to use for generations; the land was privately owned by the paper companies but publicly accessible. Quimby and her son, Lucas St. Clair, have shown a willingness to listen to concerns about these issues, so it would seem a dialogue to resolve these concerns is the best way to move forward.
Many years ago, in his masterpiece “Walden,” Henry David Thoreau wrote, “We need the tonic of wildness. … We can never have enough of nature.” This “tonic of wildness” is what brought me to Maine and what drove me to spend 17 years in Alaska as a young man.
We should be very grateful for wealthy people such as Quimby, who would rather spend their fortunes on the preservation of “wildness” than on the normal frivolities of the wealthy, such as luxury yachts and French villas. This is a global goodwill gesture, not just a local issue.
Let’s accept the gift for all the people.
Samuel Winch is a retired photojournalism professor who lives in Lubec and has so far been to 28 of the 59 national parks.