Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MoldyNalgene t1_jd77ccj wrote

I think it's a bad idea. Right now the vast majority of the tourists go to Acadia National Park and leave the rest of the states wild areas relatively peaceful for the rest of us. If this area becomes a national park, it will get very crowded very quickly and ruin the sense of wilderness. The only upside would be a revitalization for towns like Millinocket, which would likely occur with increasing tourism.

87

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_jd79noy wrote

Is there a news article or proposal that one can review? Something a little more concrete than an "only in your state" blog? I didn't see any links in there

67

GuppyGB t1_jd7agc6 wrote

There's not really much attraction. Baxter is cool because of Katahdin and the Appalachian trail. This is just a swath of wilderness. I don't see the attraction of visiting but I do like the idea of protecting it.

28

MoldyNalgene t1_jd7b97d wrote

You throw "National" in front of park and the crowds will come. Of course there are some exceptions like Gates of the Artic and Isle Royale, but those parks are a real pain in the ass to get to. It would probably cause a drastic increase in visitors to Baxter since it would be surrounded by the new national park. Good luck getting an opportunity to hike Katahdin then.

The area is so remote that I don't see it needing protection. There's no jobs up there and little in the way of infrastructure to accommodate lots of growth. The woods have already been logged for the most part, so it's not exactly old growth forest we're talking about protecting here. I personally don't like the idea, but if it happens, it happens.

27

photonsarefun t1_jd7by5t wrote

It's not the first time this has been discussed. It was strongly opposed 50 yrs ago and will prolly not go forward again. Mainers have done a good job managing their wilderness since the 70s. It's so beautiful

6

bigtencopy t1_jd7dosc wrote

Please fucking no, that’s the one place I can spend a week without seeing other people….So many good fishing spots that are barely touched by anyone. No Thanks

30

secret-handshakes t1_jd7ej0l wrote

Baxter’s protections are much more wilderness oriented than the national parks. Wilderness comes first there, recreational activities second.

25

FragilousSpectunkery t1_jd7ipfm wrote

National park status usually places a moratorium on hunting and some/all fishing, so I guess I would be opposed to this. Parks are supposed to protect special and unusual places from overuse or destruction. This are has been used for centuries without destruction, and our harvesting laws have mostly prevented overuse.

7

hike_me t1_jd7j5hm wrote

Yeah, this isn’t a real thing anymore.

A group of people were pushing for this decades ago and it never gained traction. A small group still wants it, but it has next to no support.

Eventually Roxanne Quimby (one of the backers of this) gave up and put her money and effort behind a much more modest and realistic goal that became Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument.

59

HIncand3nza t1_jd7jloh wrote

Agreed. I am not opposed to it becoming an officially protected piece of land, but the NPS is the wrong department for managing that. They have too much emphasis on unlimited access.

I took a trip out west last year and really soured on the ideal of the national park system. That sounds dramatic, but the crowds of people really detracted from the experience. It was like resort skiing the west on a weekend. Just jam packed with people, even on trails. It was shockingly bad in some places, and the NPS needs to figure out a way to restrict the number of visitors meaningfully.

I grew up going to Moosehead and Baxter. I’ve been seeing an uptick in tourists for awhile, and frankly I want them to stay on the coast. When I was a kid you could hike Kineo Big Moose, or Borestone and be nearly the only one on the trail. It’s still pretty quiet, but everyone is an out of stater. Not that that is wrong, it just detracts from the experience as a resident. There are still hikes in that region where you will be the only group on the trail though. Especially on the non katahdin hikes in Baxter and the few hikes between Greenville and Baxter.

This will be the most controversial part of this, but I understand the wealthy Mass resident urge to privatize everything. When you’re bombarded by people your only chance at securing peace and quiet is to force them to go away.

9

20thMaine t1_jd7nctk wrote

I’d rather see a wider swath of the existing AT corridor be protected

3

MrLeeman123 t1_jd7q69z wrote

You’re acting like its easy to get there. The park will attract some more visitors but getting north is a hell of a lot harder than the coastal highways. The majority of visitors will look at the 4-5 hour drive and decide to go to Acadia instead.

10

PatsFreak101 t1_jd7t6w9 wrote

And honestly it seems like a better middle way. The recreational stuff including hunting and fishing are still protected with minimal Fed intrusion. It also keeps the land protected from development.

There’s a Dark Sky event there I’d like to get up these for one of these times when my schedule and the weather cooperate.

19

seeclick8 t1_jd80len wrote

Baxter is cool and unique because of its natural beauty but most particularly because use is regulated and limited. I was hiking one of the trails several years ago and talked with someone from Pennsylvania who remarked on how beautiful and unique it was and how nice not to have crowds.

5

Girl-UnSure t1_jd834y9 wrote

I remember talking to the man at the visitor center in Millinocket in fall 21, and they said they had been pushing hard to “lobby” for Katahdin to be the next US NP. He was very into the idea. It’s gorgeous up there so I understand.

2

PowerProgrammer2020 t1_jd84gu4 wrote

I love the Katahdin area, but this is a strange yuppie Dem issue. We already have BSP and Katahdin woods and water. You can do other type of lake and hiking stuff in the area. We don't have a problem lol Someone wants a symbolic political victory when the land is being well used for a mix of things and the core areas are protected.

1

Earthling1a t1_jd8b9lx wrote

I remember climbing Katahdin about 30 years ago and thinking there were an awful lot of other people on the trail with me compared to the other times I had climbed it. First time was probably around 1975 or so, I think I saw less than five other people outside my group of two. Climbed it a few years later (in nicer weather) and probably saw about two dozen others, mostly at the top. Last time (that time 30 years ago) I saw lines of people, probably over 100 overall. I can't imagine what it must be like today. I'm imagining walking on a crowded sidewalk.

4

theresin t1_jd8imr2 wrote

Absolutely click-bait article, and old .. but my thoughts have always been conflicted.

As someone with a family camp on Millinocket Lake and who spends weeks up north in and around KW&W and BSP .. I would very much like to continue to enjoy my time up there in almost complete solitude. Just me, the brook trout, and every type of blood sucking insect there is.

On the other hand .. I would love to see the local economy up there get a boost. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but the KW&W monument has been a good thing for the town - but it's definitely not enough to replace what Great Northern left behind. But I also don't think a Yogi Bear National Park is the answer.

5

Sundance12 t1_jd8jmm7 wrote

National Parks are great, but everything doesn't need to be one. National Monuments, Preserves, & Wildlife Refuges are just as effective as protecting a space. The National Park moniker is now often leveraged in a way to drive tourism more than anything, which can be good and bad depending on the area. Lately though, it feels like a lot of these designations are watering down the name brand (Indiana Dunes and Gateway, for example) just for the sake of driving tourism money. I think the Katahdin region is certainly worthy of the Park label, but not sure if that's what's best for the region.

3

Sundance12 t1_jd8k08e wrote

The success of National Parks is a blessing and a curse, unfortunately. We should be happy people are appreciating these natural spaces, but beyond a certain threshold, it becomes a hug of death.

1

fishing2256 t1_jd8tnd0 wrote

When is cashes ledge going to o be a national monument

1

hike_me t1_jd8tu17 wrote

The state of Utah spent millions of dollars a year for years promoting their national parks until visitations exploded (Zion is pretty insane now, as is Arches which now requires timed entry reservations during peak visitation times).

All the while their state government kept passing bills asking the federal government to turn over all federal land to state or private owners.

1

HIncand3nza t1_jd8xf3h wrote

Zion isn’t even worth going to. It is absolutely insane. I thought I could sneak in at the crack of dawn and see some stuff but it was already packed. It was May too.

Arches has the potential to show that the restricted access model works. I went last year and it wasn’t too bad. Still very busy but not a complete mad house like Zion. You could actually see things and get away from crowds.

1

ScenePlayful1872 t1_jd94vjo wrote

There was an even bigger proposal vaguely discussed 15+ years ago of a park stretching from Baxter across northern NH & VT to the NY Adidirondacks

1

hike_me t1_jd963hp wrote

I went to Arches thanksgiving week a few years ago and it was AWESOME. Absolutely no crowds and temps in the mid 50s. Perfect hiking. No waiting at the entrance station. No problem finding parking at popular spots.

Went to Joshua Tree thanksgiving last year and it was really busy (but it still didn’t seem that bad compared to Acadia in summer) so unfortunately that strategy didn’t translate to another park.

3

GuppyGB t1_jd9c6ix wrote

Sounds about the same. Climbed it a couple years ago with good weather and clear skies. Maybe a dozen people at the very top at one time, and maybe 50 or so people just below the summit, either coming up or down. But spread out pretty evenly so it didn't feel crowded at all. There's a big rock scramble passed the tree line that does a good job of slowing the traffic flow lol.

2

guethlema t1_jd9dvk9 wrote

"Huge National Park Was Suggested For Around Katahdin Like 10 Years Ago" is a better title

3

robotpizza13 t1_jdamt9p wrote

While I think it could be great for the Millinocket economy, it would be bad for the resource. More vehicles, paved roads, and increased visitation to Baxter could be detrimental. While I wish everyone could experience the Maine wilderness, I think the National Park status would attract too many people and lead to more development to accommodate them.

Baxter already limits access to Katahdin. The park doesn’t advertise and prioritizes wilderness over recreation. Imagine next door to the park a big paved road with caravans of huge RVs and an upscale restaurant/hotel in the middle of the woods. While there’s nothing wrong with those things it wouldn’t be the North Maine Woods anymore.

I recently visited Death Valley NP and it’s an amazing place. However, in the middle of this extreme environment there’s a resort and golf course. It just seemed like a testament to human arrogance. “Hottest, driest place on earth, let’s build a golf course cause we can!”

Apparently, this NP is not likely to happen so I can rest easy. Maybe a national forest could be a good alternative. Many national forests still allow logging and hunting but could prevent further development. It would still be handing control to Washington and I’m not sure that would be a good move.

1

bluerock456 t1_jdc5fsp wrote

FYI this was like 10 years ago. Reddit moment

1