I have read and continue to do so, articles, reports, editorials and op-eds that freely refer to certain groups as conservationists when it isn’t true. With this continued misspeaking people are getting confused and are not understanding the issues being presented.

The latest go round in the Baldacci outdoor world saga of error after error, is the naming by executive order a panel that will assess Maine’s public lands, held in deed and through easements. The purpose is to inventory the lands and decide how best to use them. Sounds simple enough but it is a task that few believe will ever amount to anything.

There are several reasons for this and I’ll briefly touch on just a couple. For one, the Maine people have no trust in this administration. Secondly, they have very little trust in what they read for information about issues like the Allagash, the Baxter Land Swap, the Backcountry Project, etc. There is one issue that seldom if ever gets talked about and that’s the one about the differences between a conservation group and preservation group.

The title preservationist is about as appealing as being labeled an environmentalist, so groups avoid using it and opt for conservationist. After all, who can fault a conservationist, right? A conservationist, in terms of lands, is someone who works toward protecting or limiting loss or depleting of natural resources. They would use the land wisely, finding ways to avoid wasting resources while at the same time promoting programs to educate the users of such lands to understand the importance of “conservation”.

On the other hand a preservationist believes most all of the above only to a much harsher degree. They would remove the word “use” from the statement. A preservationists stops access and prohibits use of the land in order to make every attempt at keeping the land in its present state. A preservationist will not want the land altered any any way, wishing to keep it “perfect” in their mindset.

These are the major differences between the two and within those two titles come varying degrees of conservation and preservation. This is where the real difference is.

The Portland Press Herald today has an editorial that challenges the members of this not yet formed public lands overseers group, to look beyond the differences and see what is in common. The problem here is I don’t think the editor understand there are vast differences at work.

But whatever goodwill had been built up through cooperation has now been vaporized. In 2006, a searing debate needlessly imperiled the proposed addition of Katahdin Lake and surrounding lands to Baxter State Park and the Bureau of Parks and Lands.
Also last year, the Department of Conservation’s Backcountry Project, which aimed to identify the top conservation priorities of self-propelled recreationalists met with heated attacks.

The writer attempts to spread good will but falls short by making statements that aren’t true and only furthers to divide. The author states that the debate last year over the Baxter Land swap was “needlessly imperiled”. Not true. There were many justifiable reasons to question the actions of the Department of Conservation and Governor Baldacci. To state otherwise only shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of the full affects of such a decision. We are not “sheeple” here. Some of us don’t just follow the crowd for the sake of following the crowd. Giving up what Maine citizens gave up was huge and required all the cards be laid on the table and open and honest debate.

The other error is in describing the goal of the now defunct Backcountry Project. The editor says the aim of the group was to identify the “top conservation priorities of self-propelled recreationalists”. Had the editor fully examined the entire scope of the Backcountry Project, he would have understood that this group was bent on preservation not conservation. Their goal was to identify pet projects, find ways of obtaining that land from the landowner at any cost and shutting out the public in order to “preserve” that land. Someone tell me how this is in the best interest of Maine people.

If a group such as the Backcountry Project was a private organization that sought to buy up land and shut out the world, then they would have that right. Tax dollars should never be used for preservation unless it involves public safety.

The editor asks that members, who will be representatives of different interests, omit their “parochialism” in order to allow things to move forward.

So as a new task force gears up to review management of Maine’s conservation lands, it’s important for the warring parties to remember two things. One: You have much more in common than you apparently want to admit. Two: The stakes in the debate over the future of the North Woods are too high to allow parochialism to overwhelm an honest assessment of what’s really happening.

This is a reasonable request but one that is most difficult. This current administration has set the table for this kind of approach by agents of special interests. They have come to realize that it is even more important today than ever before to work harder at protecting self interests, knowing that the Governor and his secret meetings and behind the scenes deals will yank out from under them all the work they have done. Who can blame them?

We need to realize that with this tone already ringing in the ears of many as well as an onslaught of preservationist land grabbers infiltrating the Maine landscape, asking groups to make recommendations on how Maine’s sparse public lands should be used, is going to be a problem.

Tom Remington

According to the PIG BOOK for 2006, This year’s list of earmarks includes: $13,500,000 for the International Fund for Ireland, which helped finance the World Toilet Summit; $6,435,000 for wood utilization research; $1,000,000 for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative; and $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C. Spenders of your money stuffed 9,963 pork projects into the 11 appropriations bills.

The 375 worst pork spending projects, totaling $3.4 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples. See the list of pork on the following pages:

The list is long as you can imagine but if you go there and scroll down about 2/3 of the way, you’ll see this introduction of the Interior Department’s pork barrel expenditures listed under “VI Interior”.

The fiscal 2006 Interior Appropriations Act is similar to its predecessors, with the addition of funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. One of most recognizable agencies in this bill is the National Park Service (NPS), a.k.a. “the National Pork Service.” In March 2005, the Congressional Research Service cited $9.7 billion worth of maintenance backlogged at national parks. That didn’t stop appropriators from adding $136 million in pork for the NPS. Total pork for the Interior bill was $669.5 million dispersed among 737 projects.

Of the over one dozen pork projects listed, the Katahdin Iron Works was listed around 8th in spending.

$4,500,000 for the Katahdin Iron Works in Maine. This company operated in Maine between 1843 and 1890. According to Mainerec.com, “Although isolated, it was tied closely to outside markets and technological advances in the iron industry. Its beginnings, for example, paralleled a growing demand for iron farm tools, machinery and railroad car wheels. In the end, the iron works failed when huge mills in Pennsylvania brought the nation’s new age of steel.” According to The Wilderness Society, “The project also features new recreational amenities such as trails, water access points and backcountry facilities that will help bring new visitors to the region.”

Tom Remington

How can we expect the people of Maine to make decisions about public land purchases and access issues when they are not being told all the facts? I don’t want to sound like I am beating a dead horse here, but the problems began back when the Baldacci administration decided to negotiate a secret agreement involving the Baxter land swap. Because everything wasn’t above board and discussions and details were kept under raps and still are, there begins to develop a “burn me once, burn me twice” situation.

I will always assert that the Baxter land swap deal was a very poor business deal and does not benefit the majority of Maine residents directly or indirectly. I have stated my reasons thoroughly (click on the category for Baxter Land Swap). We now own 6,000 acres and it’s time to move on and deal with the cards we have been dealt, learn from our mistakes and work toward improving things for the betterment of Maine. I would challenge Governor Balcacci, that from this point forward, let’s cease with the secret negotiations and be up front and honest about everything. The residents of Maine deserve that.

Let’s first address the land access issue involving the newly acquired 2,000 acres, which was the northern chunk of land that came with the Katahdin Lake parcel. In a so-called compromised deal, 4,000 acres became restricted use while the 2,000 was for general use. All well and good until Roxanne Quimby purchased 25,000 acres to the south of the Katahdin Lake parcel effectively land locking the 2,000 acres. I have yet to prove it but looking closely as the time line of the Baxter deal, including the timing of the Legislature’s vote to approve the deal, the secret negotiators knew before the vote that Quimby was planning to buy the 25,000 acres. They withheld this information until after the compromise vote was reached. Had legislators know this fact, how would they have voted? We’ll never know.

To counter Quimby’s purchase which blocked access to not only the northern 2,000 acres but also much of the newly purchased Katahdin Lake piece, Baldacci announced he would build a road across public land to access private roads that lead to points within the entire 6,000 acres. What wasn’t shared with the public is the fact that the owners of those private roads, although generous to allow public access, have no intentions of granting any right-of-way or easements over the land they own. It wasn’t spelled out but those land owners indicated that should the right price be offered they would sell, cut and run. Should Roxanne Quimby decide to negotiate a sale of that land, the Maine citizens would be left looking like a bunch of fools. Don’t discard the idea that Quimby isn’t negotiating something. She is selling four of her 5 prime real estate holdings in Florida worth several million.

Maine residents should as the BDN says, continue talking about land purchase and land access when they know the truth. It is much easier to deal with truths than bad information. The BDN points out that the Trust for Public Lands, the entity that handled the fund raising for the Baxter land swap, has an option to purchase 8,000 acres adjacent to the 25,000 acres recent purchased by Quimby. This may be true but the State of Maine has that option as well, unless of course we are all being lied to again.

If this land is available, Maine should exhaust every avenue to purchase it if for nothing more than a bargaining chip. If we don’t get it, Quimby will, further squeezing Maine residents out of access to land they own. No more land swaps and secret deals. Let’s purchase the land outright.

Quimby has stated that she will allow the snowmobilers and ATVers to use the trails across her land until September of 2007. This will hopefully give them time to relocate their trails. This has been an opportunity for outdoor groups to get their foot in the door with Quimby. Perhaps further talks will lead to something more productive.

We need to openly discuss land access and land purchase issues in Maine but there needs to be some fence mending and some revision of tactics being employed by the Baldacci administration. At this juncture, why would hunters, trappers, snowmobilers and ATV riders be interested in approving further land acquisitions? How are they to know what secret deals Baldacci has made? This brings us to the burn me twice syndrome.

Perhaps George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, had it right when he suggested that we should just put all 6,000 acres of the land into Baxter State Park and take the $5.5 million realized from the sale of Maine public lands and find land somewhere else to buy in the Millinocket area. As I said, the only reason to buy the 8,000 acres next to Quimby is to use for leverage and/or a bargaining chip. Other than that, let’s not keep investing in land that will end up being worthless simply for the sake of preservation.

The other issue that needs real scrutiny is the $5.5 million that Maine got from selling about 7,400 acres of prime land. Maine law states two things when dealing with public lands. Any sale or negotiations of public lands have to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. This is why the Maine Legislature had to approve the Baxter land deal. The law also states there will be no net loss of land. What that means is if the state should sell or trade any land, it has to be replaced with at least the same amount of land of equal or greater value AND it needs to be replaced geographically as close to the parcels being sold or traded.

We gave up 7,400 acres of land. That had an appraised value of $5.5 million. It is imperative that Maine residents demand exact accounting of every penny of the $5.5 million and what parcels of land it intends to buy to replace the ones sold. Don’t believe for one minute that this administration will abide by the laws of this state. They don’t have a very good track record.

In essence, I agree with the BDN editorial that we need to keep talking and working toward more and improved public lands with greater access with multiple uses. The only difference between my idea and their idea is I think those negotiations need to be done after knowing all the facts.

Tom Remington

The latest in the continuing saga of Baldacci secret dealings comes from Wiscasset. The details are too complicated for me to list in this blog but if you go over to the Lincoln County News and read Greg Foster’s article, he pretty well explains everything.

At issue is part of a settlement plan involving the Maine Yankee, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Chewonki Foundation – in addition to the Chewonki Foundation, it appears that other conservation groups will benefit from the secret negotiations.

A settlement was reached allowing the Chewonki Foundation to purchase some land from Maine Yankee.

In addition to the $150,000 to acquire the parcel on Birch Point, Chewonki is supposed to receive $55,000 to acquire Berry Island and add it to the Maine Island Trail, and $100,000 to be matched with federal funds to remove lower Montsweag Brook dam. Maine Yankee is contributing a total $930,000 in combined funding for various projects.

�Nearly $1 million will go to private entities, and the state for various projects, many of which are outside the Town of Wiscasset, while the taxpayers of Wiscasset, Woolwich and Lincoln and Sagadahoc Counties stand to lose more taxable valuation,� the letter to the DEP states.

According to the damages settlement agreement, there are six projects, three of which are in Wiscasset. The other three are in Alna, Coopers Mills and Newcastle.

What has gotten Wiscasset officials in an uproar, and justifiably so, is that all of these wheelings and dealings were done without involving the towns in which the taxed property exists.

The deal is part of the Natural Resources Damages Settlement Agreement, the process of which the DEP administers.

�Assumptions and decisions were made in a vacuum, and we are now invited to �comment� after the deal was struck,� the letter states.

That fits the MO of Baldacci, always behind the backs of those who stand to lose and always negotiating with those who want to lock Maine up through acts of preservation. To complicate matters even further, which one could easily take as a tactic of Baldacci’s to force his secret plans through, a public comment period of 30 days has been scheduled after the fact and during the holiday period.

The comment period is only 30 days currently and allows for very little time for the town to assess things, according to the board, particularly since it only received a draft of the agreement. The agreement lists other stakeholders who will benefit, such as Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association, Trout Unlimited, Inc. and the State Planning Office. The board complained that neither Wiscasset nor Woolwich was part of the negotiation process.

Public comments are due by Jan. 5, which the board considers very poor timing in light of the holiday season.

Why does this administration feel it is above the citizens of Maine? Why do they continue to operate in such a fashion that it appears the regular “Joes” are getting the shaft and the “good ole boys” on Baldacci’s “payroll” are reaping the benefits of his re-election?

Unfortunately for Maine, they voted for four more years of the same and also increased the strangle-hold the Democrats have in Congress. It looks like not only will this modus operandi continue but there are very few left in Congress who will make any waves against it.

To the citizens of Maine, hang on to your hats because no longer are you just the most taxed state in the Union you are going to be a state with nothing left by the time this administration is done. It appears that Baldacci’s goal is to give every conceivable piece of land, both public and private, over to preservationists. How does this benefit all of Maine?

Tom Remington

In the 1980s, Quimby founded Burt’s Bees, maker of lip balm and other personal care products. Three years ago she sold 80% interest to an investor for $177 million. She still sits on the board of directors.

Is Quimby reshuffling her finances in order to make more Maine land acquisitions? Perhaps but time will tell.

Tom Remington

Through my series on the Backcountry Project, I was at times harsh and most times critical. My investigation has only created a long list of questions and very few answers. Let’s begin with the questions.

Whose idea was the Backcountry Project?
What was its original goal?
How did Kendall Foundation get involved?
How many meetings were there between Kendall and DOC?
How does all this relate, if at all, to Roxanne Quimby?
How does this relate to the Baxter Land Swap?
Is Roxanne Quimby a major player in the Backcountry Project plans?
Is Backcountry Project related to RESTORE?
Do they share commone goals?
Have they met and what was discussed?
Was there really only one meeting of the Peer-Review Group?
Are there meetings still going on?
How is DOC explaining to Kendall about the use of $35,000 in grant money if the Project has stopped?
Is the progress of MBP related to this year’s elections in November?
Was all the information made available in the FOIA request?
Who attended other meetings concerning MBP?
Will the meetings start up again?
Is BPL still working as planned to have 3 projects going at once?
Is the MBP still operating secretly?

As you can see the list can be endless. I would like the answers to these questions but I don’t expect that I’ll ever get them. Maine people need to bond together to make sure groups like this aren’t ordained by the governor and allowed to flourish. These actions are not good for Maine. Shutting down massive amounts of lands is a bad as opening it all up to ATV traffic.

There’s a better way. Maine sits at a crossroads. The book they are in has had this chapter written many times before. Some people think Maine is the first to experience loss of wilderness and public access to lands. Not true, it’s just that Maine has been lagging behind other states in this.

Maine people have to drop the attitude that we don’t need to protect our lands. The major land owners of these woods may not be here tomorrow. Maine already show signs of major sellouts. Real estate sales have boomed over the last few years and even though that has tailed off some, right now there are no significant indications it will stop.

Maine’s land is valuable but what can and what should we do about it?

Maine lags most states in the amount of public lands that it owns. This is mostly for two reasons. One reason is that Maine can’t afford it and the other is we have been spoiled over the years by having the generousity of private landowners and large timber and paper companies keeping their land open. There hasn’t been a need. The landscape is changing.

Not all the land that Maine owns or will buy in the future can and should be managed in the same ways. Some is ideal for some things while other parcels are better for something completely different.

Should Maine have wilderness lands? Absolutely and there is a need and a demand but there has to be balance. Before this Backcountry Project was put together, knowledgeable people should have sat down and come up with a set of standards in which the state of Maine can use for buying and managing public lands. These knowledgeable people have to come from a complete cross-section of its people.

This group would be given the task of determining how much public lands the state should buy based on price, affordability and the pace at which we are losing our open lands. They would also be charged with making a determination as to what percentage of our public lands need to be managed as wilderness, ATV use, snowmobile, hunting, fishing, etc.. This would be based on several factors and would be subject to change on a continuing basis because of need and ever changing dynamics.

Maine has wilderness designated lands now – Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Baxter State Park, to name two. Both those entities are being managed directly or indirectly through the state because they are large parcels. The AWW is undergoing some changes with how it is managed. This may help in determining how to better manage our other wilderness lands of the future.

If the demand for wilderness lands grows at a rapid pace, then Maine would need to change its buying and management practices to meet that need. If our large tracks of forest lands keep shrinking, then if Maine residents want to keep that land as is, they have to find a way to get it done.

Putting together a group whose only objectives are to find perspective wilderness lands, buy it and protect it, is short sighted and selfishly motivated. That doesn’t mean conservation groups shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the process of managing public lands. On the same token, ATV users shouldn’t be excluded nor should hunters, fishermen, hikers, bikers, snowmobile riders, etc. etc. All these things are part of what makes Maine what it is.

Once Maine has determined at what pace it can afford to buy lands and how much of it needs be managed in what ways to meet the demands of Maine citizens, then and only then can land be effectively listed as potential for protection.

The bottom line is maintaining a balance in an ever changing and demanding world. It’s not an easy task but one that has to be done. We cannot rush to buy up and shut down land merely for the sake of staving off land developers and/or mechanized recreation. Every little aspect of Maine’s economy, infrastructure and her people have to be considered.

At what expense do we save the last parcel of open land?

*Previous Posts*

Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part IV
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part III
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part II
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part I
Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington

The Backcountry Group has now begun a list of proposed areas to be considered as wilderness. Now they begin asking a lot of questions and making suggestions of other areas. Ian Burns of the Northern Forest Alliance thinks this way.

lan- l;ets look for capital W wilderness areas and capture these, Big blocks, long trails. Use quasi wilderness areas (small segments, day use areas) as linkages and as opportunities to educate the public.

Cathy Johnson of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, thinks on a much different scale than does Mr. Burns.

Cathy: there are lots of rivers that are not on the (OIM) map. We may require more detail to capture “pin prick” wilderness campgrounds and access points.

I am just going to post here the entire minutes that involved thoughts and ideas. You take a look and decide for yourself.

Where is informal use on private land, de facto wilderness?

Ralph: Can we talk about scope and size of land needed for wilderness experience? How much of a buffer zone is required for the A.T. so that users have a wilderness experience?

Cathy: there are lots of rivers that are not on the (OIM) map. We may require more detail to capture “pin prick” wilderness campgrounds and access points.

Andy: Islands should be considered. IF&W considering putting Halifax and Bois Bubert for wilderness designation.

Ralph” The navy panel is closing the Navy site in Reddington, 9-10k acres. There is lots of community interest. BPL is interested in conservation, doesn’t have to have ownership or control.

Steve: Lengthy potential wilderness area several protected areas that could be linked, abuts saddleback ski area.

Steve- It looks like we already know most areas.
What are the linkages between these wilderness areas? Eg link w roach ponds

Kate: Campsites, portages needed for NFCT from Grand falls to Moosehead Spencer lake and Moose river Bow

Jensen: International AT should be considered.

Cathy: Lack of protection for the trail sets it apart.

Should this be considered? What is status? What if it became viable? Is there a sympathetic relationship with Wilderness?

Western Mountain Foundation, 180 mile commercial trail Rockwood to Bethel

Question about ‘industrialized wilderness such as WMF, rafting, what constitutes backcountry… Are we cutting out opportunities?

lan- l;ets look for capital W wilderness areas and capture these, Big blocks, long trails. Use quasi wilderness areas (small segments, day use areas) as linkages and as opportunities to educate the public.

Sandy: Seboomic property road is an example.

Steve: How do we treat popular defined but unmanaged routes? Eastern Maine Canoe trail an opportunity for management.

Garret: We should strongly consider segmenting areas into mechanized/non-mechanized areas. Motors are an intrusive presence in an otherwise natural area. Glacier Bay AK an example.

lan There is a difficulty in designating sections of wilderness that area surrounded by ATV use.

It is reported that the ATV enthusiasts want an ATV trail on every parcel of public land.

Steve- This process is focused on human powered experience.

Winter issues

Cathy Johnson; Difficulty with Winter use management of Allagash. Churchill Dam to Round Pond. Currently limited use by snowmobiles because of gasoline limits, but an entrepreneur has stashed a tank which will increase this use.

Steve: North Maine Woods makes a list of plowed woods roads is available annually.

How to link BC lands on Debsconeag Lake with TNC Debsconeag lakes

Need to create a statewide set of standards for non motorized wilderness management.

Fine tuning areas of public management: NFA recommendations to BPL should be reviewed and considered for incorporation in this project.

Dave P: WMNF planning nearing end of process, Is there a question/opportunity to expand Speckled Mountain area?

Dave P: Refocus on links between existing wilderness areas. We should look for larger areas, 25-40k acres.

Overlap. Instead of looking at the intersecting zones between ecological areas and recreational areas, we should consider the combined area – protect both instead of a smaller subset.

Cathy In winter only Baxter has opportunities for extended ski/snowshoe travel, and half of it is on snow machine roads.

lan: St John Valley and Allagash best opportunity for expanding wilderness Need to segregate user groups into motorized and non motorized.

What is minimum wilderness size?
• 24-40kac- Dave
• Baxter Park -Cathy
• 2-4 day loop trail to maximize trail miles -lan
• Maine a linear state, rivers long and narrow. Protect the corridor Garret

Jensen: BSP owes some of its attractiveness to its size- There is a demand for more protected areas of this size.

Steve: Need to protect both narrow corridors and Big Block areas.

Consider cross boarder opportunities for big block sections-Mahoosucs, St. Croix, St. John

Andy: Wassataquoik and East Branch Penobscot should be considered

Let me if I may, highlight one comment made that reflects on the attitude of at least some participants in this meeting.

lan There is a difficulty in designating sections of wilderness that area surrounded by ATV use.

It is reported that the ATV enthusiasts want an ATV trail on every parcel of public land.

I find a statement like this just totally bizarre. Here sits a group of individuals, most of whom are representing some organization, and at least one individual has the audacity to make a statement like this. A group sitting in a room, with the blessings of the governor, whose objective is to locate, list and find ways to acquire and protect lands to keep most users off and they feel justified in making this remark? Who is this person and just who do they think they are?

This is what epitomizes what is wrong with this intitiative. It has no interest in what’s good for Maine. It is all about them. They are an exclusive, elite group who obviously believe their ideas are superior to others. They believe their definition of recreation is better than anyone else’s and they are determined to use the resources of the state of Maine to achieve their goals. There is only one way that a group like this can believe this way. They would have to think they are operating under the leadership of the DOC and ultimately Governor Baldacci.

This group believes that what they are doing is for the better. Some of what they are doing is good for Maine. Most of it is not. Their approach is wrong and their attitudes are wrong. As we have seen, the Backcountry Project has set their sights on designating lands as tiny as a “pin prick” on a map as well as parcels as big or bigger than Baxter State Park. They know no limits. They talk of “cross boardering” into neighbor states and countries. No piece of land is too small nor too big, all for one purpose – label it wilderness and shut it down. Shut it down to any form of mechanized recreation AND logging operations.

What is most scary about the secret plans of this group is that they don’t really care whether you own that land they want. It’s immaterial to them. They want it and they’ll find a way to take it.

According to my sources, this was the first and last meeting of the Backcountry Project. The secrecy continues as nobody knows why they stopped. The next meeting was scheduled for early December. If it happened it totally got by a lot of people as did the formation of the group up until this first meeting. Noone in the Maine legislature was made aware of this initiative to my knowledge.

Where will it go from here?

*Previous Posts*

Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part III
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part II
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part I
Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington

From the onset, we’ve been able to assess that the goal of the Backcountry Project is to identify as much land as they can for consideration of wilderness designation. Leading up to the part of the meeting where participants actually got to begin listing their dream wilderness locations, some assorted terminology was used along with brief descriptions of what the BP already had for information.

Steve Spencer, director of Backcountry Project and a member of the staff of the Maine Department of Conservation, shared with those in attendance about a convention he attended in Alaska. This is the first entry using the term “Re-Wilding”.

Steve mentioned he had participated in a International Wilderness Concepts and Practices Course and attended the 8th World Wilderness Congress in Alaska s; an interesting concept was “Re-Wilding” various parcels of land. One example (from Garret Conover) might be for TNC to plant trees on roads adjacent to St John River corridor.

(I am to assume that TNC might be refering to The Nature Conservancy?) I am mentioning these terms so that all of us can become familiar with what they mean so that we may better understand the goals of BP.

The term “eco-reserves” was also used.

Brief discussion on ‘eco reserves’ (places identified for protection based on ecological values rather than human, social, or recreational values). There is a high likelihood that eco-reserves and backcountry areas will overlap.

Here’s an interesting comment or observation made by someone (at least it’s in the minutes).

We have lots of data on ecological values and measurements, little data on social and recreational values and measurements.

If this is a true statement and if the same is suggesting that this group is in need of more data on social and recreational values and measurements, they sure haven’t assembled the right people to assist in that endeavor.

After reviewing a map and letting the group know that included in this eventory of possible land grabs are long distance corridors like the Appalachian Trail, 100-mile Wilderness, Northern Forest Canoe Trail and Maine Island Trail, an explanation of the Project and goals was given.

The backcountry project will run for 1 year and is supported by a grant from Kendall. The Goal is to create a complete inventory of what is out there and what are the next big areas and long trails to acquire and protect.

I might be nit-picking here but I try to pay fairly close attention to the use of the English language in determining what someone means. These minutes are so brief it is hard to know for sure.

As part of the goals as made in this statement, it says they will inventory “what’s out there” and what are the “NEXT BIG areas” to acquire and protect. I may be reading into this but what is actually meant by “next big”? What has this group or perhaps more precisely, what has DOC already acquired that is “BIG” and protected? Are they refering to the Baxter land deal? Are they talking about lands bought by Roxanne Quimby?

Ralph Knoll, Bureau of Parks and Lands, summarized his organizations plans.

Ralph provided a brief summary of ongoing BPL management planning. Intent is to have 3 projects underway at any given time.

I’m not sure what that statement means to be honest. It comes in the minutes right before the list of areas to be considered for wilderness designation. If I take it as I see it, I would guess that the BPL plans on taking 3 projects from the list of “considered” areas and go to work on them to find ways of acquiring and/or protecting.

Here’s the list of which is anyone’s guess as to who put this list together. Was it compiled by DOC prior to this meeting? Was it brainstormed together at this meeting? Was each invitee asked to bring their wish list to the meeting? Was this list put together by any and all groups bent on land protection through wilderness designation, including out-of-state interests?

• Kennebec Highlands
• White Mountain National Forest
• AMC lands
• St John River Corridor
• TNC Debsconeag Lakes Wilderness
• TNC/Haynes 1 Ok ac. N of Donnell Pond
• Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge
• Sunkhaze
• Umbagog
• Add KI-JoMary to the map
• Show rivers on map for multi day trips
• Saco – not thought of as wilderness but maybe candidate for reclamation
• Benjamin Valley
• Roxanne Quimby land
• Katahdin Iron Works
• Roach River
• Mooselookmeguntic to Rapid River
• Borestone
• Downcast lakes Land Trust
• Rangely Lakes Land Trust
• Androscoggin River Water Trail
• Appalachian Trail
• International Appalachian Trail
• Maine Island Trail

You tell me how massive this list is and it’s only a start. This list also cuts into the heart of some areas that provide a sizable economic boom to local business. On this list is the Saco River, with this added on: “not thought of as wilderness but maybe candidate for reclamation”. As much as some of us might not care so much for how the Saco River is used, it does provide a need for a lot of people. Does this group think they can just designate a river like the Saco and “reclaim it” to conform to their standards of recreation? Aren’t the party goers on the Saco good enough for this group? Is the money they pour into the economies through the Saco River Valley not as good as the money from the wealthy, wilderness seekers invisioned by participants of the Backcountry Project? Maine they even think Maine doesn’t need a little help from this kind of recreation-based enterprises. This stinks!

Some of the areas designated on this list I find extremely disturbing and would become a major disruption to local and statewide economies should these areas be virtually shut down to the forms of recreation now being enjoyed there.

The White Mountains Nation Forest? What? They really want to shut that down? It becomes obvious that the Katahdin land swap deal that puts another 4-6,000 acres into wilderness designation is but a mere drop in the bucket compared to the plans of this group.

I just find the actions of this group appauling. I also believe this is a direct reflection of the sitting governor, someone who might just consider himself to be slightly better than the average Mainer. He may even consider himself above the law. It’s obvious he condons secrecy and applies it to many of his “initiatives”.

Next I’ll show some of the thoughts and what was tossed around the room for ideas of what parameters to use in making determinations of which areas should be considered.

*Previous Posts*

Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part II
Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part I
Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington

In the last article I gave you a list of who was invited as possible candidates to participate in a “peer-review” group that would oversee the operations of the Backcountry Project – kind of like asking the sheep to watch over the sheep but in this case it became the sheep watching the sheep who were in fact the sheep.

On October 18, 2005 a meeting was held at the Maine Department of Conservation offices in Augusta. I have minutes to that meeting which I will share. I would like to point out a couple of things though first. One, the minutes are not well done. They are sketchy at best and at times they identify who is speaking and at others it is unknown. The second issue is that I realize as you probably will too by the way the minutes are recorded, this may have been more of a brainstorming session than a work one.

I will provide you with the full text of the minutes but first I want to take a look at some key points. The first disturbing bit of evidence comes before the minutes begin. The title of the meeting looks like this.

Maine Backcountry Project
Peer Review Group First Meeting Minutes
10/18/05 9-Noon DOC Augusta Office

From the information that I have been dissecting, I have been led to believe that there would be two separate, as best as could be expected, entities at work here. The first would be the Backcountry Project participants and the second would be a peer review group that would “keep an eye on” things, as requested by the Kendall Foundation.

What I find puzzling right off is that under the title of these meeting minutes it would appear that if there ever was two separate groups, they have already morphed into one. So much for overseeing and accountability.

The minutes actually show that no member of the DOC attended the meeting – more on that in a moment. A peer review group, whose function according to what DOC told Kendall Foundation, was to oversee the work of the MBP and make recommendations and assist in amassing knowledge.

Steve will be assembling a peer review group by July 31, 2005 to help guide each phase of the project.

I think it will become clear to you that the peer review group is in fact the Maine Backcountry Project. I wonder how long prior to the application process with Kendall Foundation did the DOC have this so-called peer-review group lined up and ready for action?

Let’s look one more time at what the Kendall Foundation had to say in Question One about how to utilize this peer review group and to what ends.

We would like to know how you envision the informal
peer-review process taking place, a process which we believe to be beneficial for the following reasons:

To build a solid “information base to objectively evaluate wilderness acquisition opportunities” (as stated in your preliminary proposal).

To obtain the best and varied conservation planning data in the State’s efforts to prioritize wilderness areas (i.e., to boost the State’s resources/staff capacity by drawing on the expertise and strengths of partner groups).

To strengthen existing partnerships between the State and conservation nonprofits, and perhaps build new ones, in the effort to build collaboration for wilderness protection.

To help the State achieve ambitious protection goals, making it a leader in terms of wildlife/wilderness protection.

That last objective jumps out at me. “To help the State achieve ambitious protection goals, making it a leader in terms of wildlife/wilderness protection.” In all honesty this doesn’t sound like anything that would be working in the best interest for all Maine people. This sounds like the Kendall Foundation has been told through this whole process to date, what the goals of the Baldacci administration is and that’s to join hands with people like Roxanne Quimby and other groups to buy up and close down Maine’s forests in the name of protection. All being done quite secretively I might add.

The first part of the minutes has introductions of the group – assuming that this introduction is of all of those who attended.

The group introduced themselves (Dave Publicover AMC, Brian Wentzell AMC, Jensen Bissell BSP, Greg Shute Chewonki, Ralph Knoll BPL, Dave Mention MIT A, Andy Cutko MNAP, Cathy Johnson NRCM, lan Burns NFA, Kate Williams NFCT, Karen Woodsum SC, Sandy Neilly MF, Garret Conover NWW).

Before I help you with better identification of those in attendance, let me say that in the introductions there are none from any employees of the Department of Conservation. Following the opening paragraph of the minutes, a statement refers to Steve. There were no Steves introduced above, so I have to assume that the Steve being referenced in the minutes, refers to Steve Spencer Director of the Backcountry Project. The minutes also do not state who is keeping the minutes.

In the introductions, it lists a name with some initials following the name. For those who don’t know, which included me inititially, I’ll do my best to tell you what they stand for and give you a link to their organization’s website if they have one or information about the organization if they don’t.
AMC = Appalachian Mountain Club
BSP = Baxter State Park
Chewonki = Chewonki Foundation
BPL = Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (falls under the direction of the DOC)
MITA = Maine Island Trail Association
MNAP = Maine Natural Areas Program
NRCM = Natural Resources Council of Maine
NFA = Northern Forest Alliance
NFCT – Northern Forest Canoe Trail
SC = Sierra Club
MF = Moosehead Region Futures Committee????? Not sure on this one.
NWW = North Woods Ways

Steve states the goals of the day.

Steve stated that the goal of the day was to review various backcountry parcels of land that may be available and that should/could be considered for management as Wilderness.

Let’s quickly review for a moment what “wilderness” is as defined for the Kendall Foundation.

The terms “backcountry” and “wilderness” both refer to large areas of wild lands where nature prevails and human alterations are minimal (i.e. primitive hiking trails and camp sites). In Maine, these terms are conversationally used somewhat interchangeably. More technical terms can be found in the Bureau of Parks and Lands Integrated Resource Policy (IRP) that uses a system of resource allocations to direct management practices for lands basedfon their resource values. The IRP does not include a” wilderness” designation, per se, however there are two resource allocations that contain what we consider to be wilderness characteristics.

First, the Backcountry-Non mechanized Recreation designation is applied “for the values associated with a special combination of features including superior scenic quality, remoteness, wild and pristine character, and capacity to impart a sense of solitude. Most will encompass more than 1,000 contiguous acres”

Second, the IRP also establishes Ecological Reserves (as a sub-category of Special Protection) “for the purpose of maintaining one or more natural community types or native ecosystem types in a natural condition and range of variation and contributing to the protection of Maine’s biological diversity, and managed: A) as a benchmark against which biological and environmental change can be measured, B) to protect sufficient habitat for those species whose habitatneeds are unlikely to be met on lands managed for other purposes; or C) as a site for ongoing scientific research, long-term environmental monitoring, and education. Most ecological reserves will encompass more than 1,000 contiguous acres.”

While Backcountry Nonmechanized and Ecological Reserves are distinct allocations, together they provide the opportunities for public lands in Maine to be managed for wilderness values. We note that because we envision this project also working in partnership with other public and private landowners the Integrated Resource Policy will not always strictly apply. However we think it will provide guidance for these partnerships and sets a strong floor for creative approaches to wilderness-type management. Please refer to attached IRP excerpts for more detail.

I certainly wouldn’t want you to lose sight of what the goal of the Backcountry Project is. It has nothing to do with finding lands available for recreation for all or even lands that should be considered usable for forest management and industry. This Project is not broad based and includes very few interests only a few special interest groups. It has no goals or directions only to find lands they think could be bought and/or put into easements for wilderness designation as per their own definition.

Next we will further look into areas the peer group discusses as possible wilderness designation.

*Previous Posts*

Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part I
Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington

I you will recall, we talked about the group in earlier articles. It was of significant interest evidently to the Kendall Foundation as they wanted a group that would oversee the actions of the Backcountry Project.

The DOC informed Kendall that they had put together a list of would-be prospects.

Steve will be assembling a peer review group by July 31, 2005 to help guide each phase of the project. In addition to the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlands Project, examples of possible invitees include the Northern Forest Alliance, the Appalachian Mountain Club, Forest Society of Maine, Downeast Lakes Land Trust, the Wilderness Society, Sweetwater Trust, Maine Recreational Guides Association, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Sierra Club, Maine Sporting Camp Association, Maine Audubon Society, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Baxter State Park and the Maine Appalachian TrailClub and state agency representatives such as from the Maine Natural Area Program and Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. We would be very pleased if the Kendall Foundation would also join us.

I had noted before as well that the clear majority, if not all players in this perceived group, are only preservationists/conservationists with no representation of forest product businesses and other recreational interest groups, afterall, this does concern these other interests.

Here’s the list compiled by DOC.

Maine Backcountry Project Peer Review Group Invitees

Dave Publicover
Appalachian Mountain Club
5 Joy Street Boston, MA 02108

Bryan Wentzell
Appalachian Mountain Club
93 Second St. 2nd Floor
Hallowell, Maine04347 04347

J.T. Horn
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
18 On the Common, Unit 7
P.O. Box 312
Lyme, NH 03768

Jensen Bissell
Baxter State Park
64 Balsam Drive
Millinocket, Maine 04462

Greg Shute
Chewonki Foundation
485 Chewonki Neck Road
Wiscasset, Maine 04578

Bob Cummings
Maine Appalachian Trail Club
Route 209
Phippsburg, Maine

Sally Stockwell
Maine Audubon Society
20 Gilsland Farm Road
Falmouth, Maine 04105

Ralph Knoll
Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands
22SHS
Augusta, Maine 04333

Andy Cutko
Maine Natural Areas Program
93SHS
Augusta, Maine 04333

Dave Mention
Maine Island Trail Association
58 Fore St, Bldg 30, 3rd Floor
Portland, ME 04101

Bob Croce
Spencer Pond Camps
20806 Spencer Pond Road
East Middlesex Township, Maine 04441

Steve Keith
Downeast Lakes Land Trust
P.O. Box 75
4 Water Street
Grand Lake Stream, ME 04637

Bart DeWolf
Elliotsville Planation Inc. 5
Bear Trail
Gouldsboro, ME 04607

Liz Burroughs
FOB 775 115 Franklin
Bangor, Maine 04002

Alexandra Conover
Maine Wilderness Guides Organization
c/o North Woods Ways
2293 Elliottsville Road
Willimantic, ME 04443

Cathy Johnson
Natural Resource Council of Maine
3 Wade Street
Augusta, Maine

Nancy Sferra
The Nature Conservancy
Fort Andross
14 Maine Street, Suite 401
Brunswick, Maine 04011

Sandy Neilly
PO Box 102
Greenville, Maine

Kathleen Fitzgerald
Northeast Wilderness Trust
14 Beacon Street, Suite 506
Boston, MA 02108

Jeremy Schaefer
The Wilderness Society
93 Second St. 2nd Floor
Hallowell, Maine04347 04347

lan Burnes
Northern Forest Alliance
3 Wade Street
Augusta, Maine

Kate Williams
Northern Forest Canoe Trail
P.O. Box 565
Waitsfield, VT 05673

Karen Woodsum
Sierra Club
1 Pleasant St. Portland, Me 04101

Sigrid Pickering
Sweetwater Trust
Faneuil Hall Marketplace
4 South Market Building, 4th floor
Boston, MA 02109-1610

Rebecca Oreskes
White Mountain National Forest
300 Glen Road
Gorham, New Hampshire

I would like to make note of who was invited, whether or not they attended because I believe it reflects on the mindset of the DOC, including Karin Tilberg, Steve Spencer, Patrick McGowan and others when it comes to the plans of the Backcountry Project.

On this list there are 25 people invited representing 24 organizations. Of the 25 invited 6 organizations are out-of-state groups. They are the AMC out of Boston, this in addition to a representative from Maine, The Appalachian Trail Conservancy in Lyme, N.H., the Northeast Wilderness Trust out of Boston, the Northern Forest Canoe Trail out of Vermont, Sweetwater Trust again a Boston group and White Mountain National Forest.

I’ll grant that a couple of these are obvious choices, ie. WMNF and the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. Look at the rest. What is this saying? There is not one group or individual here to represent any other plan than to find wilderness lands for a select purpose, period.

I will remind you one more time that this meeting takes place at the DOC in Augusta. I will also remind you that this is clearly a function of the Department of Conservation under the Baldacci administration. Our tax dollars are being spent to sponsor a select group of elite preservationists whose dream is to see Maine become one giant wilderness park open to just about noone.

There is one other person of interest that was invited to become part of this peer review group to oversee the Backcountry Project. His name is Bart DeWolf representing the Elliotsville Plantation Inc.. For those of you who don’t know, Mr. DeWolf works for and respresents Roxanne Quimby.

*Previous Posts*

Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington