The "Big Question" in this month's Backpacker magazine is: Should the Maine Woods be designated a national park?

Not surprisingly, Backpacker readers polled 84% yes, 16% no. I'll venture a guess that most poll respondents are from away. Bet?

Again, no surprise here, Jym St. Pierre of RESTORE: The North Woods argued for the "pro" side, while John Simko, Greenville Town Manager, reasoned for the "no" camp.

Well, hold on to your hat... Count me in (again) on the "no" team. No, no. no.

With all due respect to the "yes" folks, the northern Maine woods isn't a Bambi-like wilderness to be locked up and turned into some big elitist outdoor playground.

Have you been to the "Maine Woods"?

Real Maine people live and work there, in the forest products industry and related businesses to tourism and recreation and many others. And the region supports a broad mix of traditional Maine sporting uses, from hunting, fishing and snowmobiling to hiking, boating, rafting, and nordic skiing.

I continue to take offense with some outside group from (RESTORE) drawing a line around 3.2 million acres of mostly private property, then printing and distributing a phony Maine Woods National Park brochure to the public as if it were a done deal.

St. Pierre writes: "While some conservation work is being done, creating a national park is the only [my emphasis added] way to guarantee stewardship of the last big, undeveloped tract east of the Mississippi."

Bull.

Some conservation work? Some?

What do you call all the lands that The Nature Conservancy has protected on the St. John River and in the Katahdin Forest not too long ago, that are being managed for multiple use (i.e. conservation, recreation and timber harvesting)?

What do you call the purchases by the State of Maine, the 40,000 acre Namahkanta parcel for one, that are being managed successfully by the Bureau of Parks and Lands for multiple uses?

And what do you call the late 2003 purchase of 37,000 acres in the Gulf Hagas-Katahdin Iron Works-Little Lyford Ponds area by the Appalachian Mountain Club that is being managed for multiple uses?

Never mind the many private landowners in the region, large and small, who have managed and continue to manage thier lands for multiple use, all the while allowing public access for Maine's prized traditional uses.

Is the federal government the only entity capable of properly managing our forestlands?

Hardly.

St. Pierre goes on: "Like many rural places, northern Maine is overly dependent on one industry--forestry."

I see.

Please tell me how turning the whole shooting match up there into a national park does anything at all to diversify the region's economy. Except where a NP will replace reasonably well paying forest products industry jobs with low-paying park concessioners jobs.

Simko gets it right on the money: "If we protect some areas, maintain productive timberland, and expand opportunities for recreation, we diversify our local industry instead of homogenize it, thus creating a more stable economic community."

A recent report compiled by the Northern Forest Land Council 10th Anniversary Forum, a coalition of conservationists, local community officials and timber managers backs up Simko's (and my) view. The report recommends "that state, federal and private agencies continue working to conserve land that becomes available and to support sustainable forestry practices and recreational access to the forests."

That sounds like a reasonable, balanced approach to me. And that's the key: balance.

It's the word I heard most during my tour of the AMC's K-I property last week. The AMC is taking a balanced approach to the management of this spectacular piece of land smack in the heart of Maine's 100-mile wilderness. But don't take their word for it, I was advised. Talk to the local folks and ask them. And I did.

The business people, county and municipal officials and residents I spoke with all shared their concern for the future of the Maine Woods. But they have a practical, balanced plan for approaching the challenges that face the region. And a national park isn't part of that plan. Rather, they see a diverse economic base that preserves traditional industries and outdoor uses as the key to a healthier, more prosperous future.

I agree and wholeheartedly support their efforts.

What do you think?