Hard to believe, I know, but every now and then a smidgen of good news, a sensible idea, does emerge from that locus of inaction, bad actions, empty suits, tax-mongering, and general corruption, Washington, D.C.

The House passed a measure, which President Bush is expected to sign, that will provide more dollars to Acadia National Park to do a number of good things:

* Acquire more land by either purchase or swap, further protecting our magnificent natural treasure.

* Build a mainland transportation and visitor facility (in Trenton near the airport most likely) for visitors and commuters, who can then park their cars and use the Island Explorer bus service, a car-free transit experience of the highest order.

This is good news for the park, for us.

Carey Kish photo

Continued investment in land conservation on high-value Mount Desert Island will be expensive but necessary and worthwhile in the long term as development pressure mounts around the present park boundaries.

Continued investment in the model transportion infrastructure supporting the Island Explorer bus is always a wise decision. Traffic on the corridor onto the island and in the park is a detriment to both the local resident needing to get to work, and to the visitor wanting to enjoy the park.

The Island Explorer can and does take a big chunk out of the congestion and truly enhances the visitor experience by making it so, so easy to get around without a car.

I can sure vouch for the system, having tried and enjoyed a "car-free" trip to Acadia last summer. The bus rocks!

The off-island facility and "park & ride" will continue to grow the service and help to grab riders before they become part of the congestion problem. What a concept. Kudos folks!

All good.

Carey Kish photo

Note to the story author: There are two national parks in Maine: Acadia and the Appalachian Trail. Yep, it's true.

On with spring my Trail Head friends. A great time to visit Acadia, by the way...

Carey Kish photo

Wind power is coming to Kibby Mountain.

But not to Black Nubble.

So decided Maine's LURC yesterday.

LURC has approved TransCanada's proposal for a 44-turbine wind power project for the Kibby Mountain Range.
TransCanada image

I have asked this question in the past and I ask it again today: Why is Kibby Mountain any less valuable than Black Nubble?

Why will we now adorn the Kibby Mountain Range with wind towers, but not Black Nubble? Please understand, of course, that I prefer not to have wind power projects on either location.

Let's try a little exercise...

Read this from today's news story:

"During their deliberations Monday, commissioners cited potential effects on natural resources on Black Nubble, which offers habitat for several rare animal and plant species, but spent more time on the development's visual effect. The 400-foot-tall lighted towers would have a dramatic effect on the Appalachian Trail, which comes within miles of the mountain, according to groups that opposed the application. Commissioner Rebecca Kurtz said the application proposed what amounts to an industrial site on a mountaintop and could affect both the mountain scenery and the area's natural resources."

Now substitute "Kibby Mountain" and "local trails" for "Black Nubble" and "Appalachian Trail." Then read again.

Notice how nothing really changes?

That's right.

Think about that.

"... an industrial site on a mountaintop and could affect both the mountain scenery and the area's natural resources."

Sure, we all love our Appalachian Trail and its precious wild environs. A wind power project, however well-intended and potentially beneficial, doesn't belong near there. There are plenty of other more suitable locations for wind power elsewhere in Maine.

But are we to throw Kibby Mountain under the bus because it is less known and less visited? Does it really have less value? Does it?

I haven't hiked Kibby Mountain. But I do know the area pretty well. And it's wild and beautiful. No, it's not officially protected, as in state or federally-owned. It's private forestland, productive timberland. So what?

Are we really going to mar Kibby Mountain in order to feel good about being green?

I guess so. LURC has spoken. Black Nubble wins (yeah!), Kibby loses.

According to TransCanada, pending final zoning changes and project approval, construction is expected to commence sometime in 2009 or 2010.

Given that timetable my plan is to finally hike Kibby Mountain sometime next summer. Just for yucks. Maybe you all can join me.

We'll have a requiem for Kibby Mountain. A mountaintop party. Drink a few beers on the summit. Hoot and holler some. Pee onto the rocks and blueberry bushes. Say goodbye to Kibby as it is. Feel green, piss yellow.

We can even leave our beer cans and lunch trash right there. What will it matter when the big honking D-9er plows up over the ridgetop in a year or so? Not a damn.

The Maine Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club is hosting a public discussion forum, “Global Warming – An Update for Maine,” Tuesday evening, December 11th at 7PM at the Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick.

“This is a much greater issue than mere conservation or recreation,” said Jeff Aceto, Meetings and Education Chair for the Maine AMC. “Awareness of mankind's hand on the land is an issue whose importance is more apparent with each day.”

"The Maine AMC hopes to raise awareness of global climate change issues at its Tuesday evening discussion forum in Brunswick.
Carey Kish photo

Paul Kando, a specialist in climate change from Damariscotta, will provide attendees with a unique perspective by applying the global effects of climate change to our immediate environment here in Maine. Elizabeth Ehrenfeld, AMC Board member and former Portland Trails president, will examine at Maine's efforts on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (REGGI) and explain ways that individuals can make a difference.

“Raising awareness of our changing climate is consistent with the AMC’s mission to protect the Northeast's natural resources, and we try to apply a mix of science, activism, and stewardship towards this goal,” said Aceto. “We would expect people to bring an open mind and consider the both the world-wide and local ramifications of the information presented.”

The discussion will be held at the Morrell Room in the Curtis Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, ME. Parking is available on street and off of Union Street. A potluck dinner will precede the event at 6 PM. Drinks and plastic ware will be provided and attendees are encouraged to bring a potluck item.

See you there!

Is your cubicle at work starting to feel a little small? Inching closer in on you, causing a twinge of claustrophobia maybe?

We all go through it. Sometimes you look around at the same four walls, the same pile of papers on the desk, the same annoying person in the cubie next to you... and you think, what the heck am I doing?

You love the outdoors. Spend gobs of time out there.

What if you could work in the outdoors, with the outdoors, for the outdoors?

You know, like for money and all.

Want to get away (thanks Southwest Airlines)? Well, maybe you can.

What if you could work in the great outdoors? Could you? Would you?
Carey Kish photo

I was surfing around the other day and happened upon a host of cool jobs in the outdoors, three right here in Maine, another next door in NH, and one based in Boston. Very good jobs, doing some very good things. Right there on the Maine Land Trust Network website.

Now mind you, I love my day job, and I've got no plans for moving on, but even I had to stand up and take notice. And I hope you will, too. Because if you've got the resume to match up for one of these, you are in some kind of luck.

We're talking dream jobs here. Not riches, but serious fulfillment. And fun. In the outdoors, need I remind you.

Want to be the director of the Bates-Morse Mountain Conservation Area in Phippsburg? Working cooperatively to support research, teaching and experiential education opportunities at and related to these sites? In charge of the 600-acre conservation area and the Coastal Center, a Bates College-owned instructional and retreat facility?

Could happen if you have the right program and/or facilities management, relationship-building, educational partnership, and environmental engagement background.

Heard of the Maine Huts and Trails project? Sure you have. A big dream--and now a reality in process--of building a series of backcountry huts along a trail system from Moosehead Lake to the Mahoosucs. How cool is that?

Very.

Want to be the Maine Huts and Trails Operations Manager, "responsible for day-to-day management and oversight of the hut and trail operations"?

You can be if you've got the communication, problem-solving and strong leadership skills they're looking for.

Perhaps you're heavy into maps and technically savvy with GIS, or geographic information systems technology. Then you'd probably be interested in the New Hampshire Chapter of the Nature Conservancy and the GIS & Conservation Information Manager position.

There you'd manage "the compilation, assembly, storage, maintenance, retrieval, and use of digital data, reports, maps, and other conservation information," or in laymen's terms, you'd get to play with cool maps all day, and probably have to spend a good deal of time out in the field, too. Tough duty, eh?

You might want to look into becoming the Conservation Resources Advisor for the Maine Association of Conservation Commissions. There you will work on the municipal level, performing research and educating the public on local land conservation in southern Maine.

Then there's the Executive Director for the Northeast Wilderness Trust, a "regional land trust working to preserve and restore forever-wild landscapes for wildlife and people." Good organizational leadership, fundraising experience, and financial management skills may just land you an interview and more.

Finally, there's the Georges River Land Trust and a job as Executive Director of that fine organization up the coast in Rockland. I just love these folks and what they've done, where "over 1500 acres of lands are now under conservation and the developing Georges Highland Path system provides over 37 miles of hiking trails connecting people with the land." If you've been on their trails you know the story.

The GRLT seeks an "experienced and seasoned leader with vision, passion and a background of accomplishment in land conservation."

Are they describing you?

So now, how's that resume update coming? Good, good, I see. That's right, send it along now. You never know until you try. What price your dreams???

Think of that slogan of the Maine State Lottery... "you can't win if you don't entah!"

Life is short. Do it.

What a surprise!

The Plum Creek public hearings have been delayed yet again.

Another long and drawn out process beaten to death as if blood actually could be drawn from a stone.

What is the end game? The point at which there can be no more delays, the process completed, a decision made.

Or is exhausting delay a desired end in itself?

Must everything take so long?

Let's get on with it already...

Public hearings. LURC vote up or down. Done.

What's your take on this withering process?

Apparently no one.

Correct that: Two people.

Yep, that's how many people showed up at the LURC public hearing last night in Carrabassett Valley to speak in defense of Kibby Mountain and oppose a wind energy project there. The two represented the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, the range in which Kibby is a major peak.

Go figure.

Interestingly, the folks from the Maine Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Appalachian Mountain Club--groups who have vehemently opposed other wind power proposals, like the nearby Redington project abutting the Appalachian Trail--all support wind power on Kibby.

Go figure.

Poor Kibby Mountain.

I haven't even hiked it yet, but I want to save it. I guess a special trip is called for sooner rather than later, before the bulldozers get there. To see the place as it is, to photograph it for posterity. And to imagine what it will one day look like adorned with "44 towers, each about 41 stories high, to run along 13 miles of ridges on Kibby Mountain and Kibby Range."

Never mind the miles of gravel roads to support the towers and miles more of transmission lines and God knows what else for this, New England's largest wind power deal.

Yes, that's right, I've soured on wind power. Not entirely, but most certainly in places like Kibby. The trade off is too great, too far out of balance. 132 megawatts of power sounds ducky, but at the cost of an entire mountain range?

Nope, sorry.

Not when simple conservation measures, things that you and I can do every day, could collectively save as much energy as would be produced by the Kibby project.

Smaller scale wind projects in developed areas, industrial areas, urban areas and such, closer in to where the power is actually needed, that's a better option. Not in our remote mountains.

But alas, who really cares?

Kibby Mountain is just far enough off the grid of our conciousness that we, including our environmental defender friends, can apparently afford to sacrifice it for a few extra watts of juice to power our washing machines, stereos and HDTVs.

Ain't that nice? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy don't it?

Think I'm gonna pick a nice warm sunny late October day and make the drive up north to Kibby Mountain for a hike. Make it a wake of sorts. To pay last respects to a mountain that will soon cease to exist as we know it.

You wanna join me?

Remember our discussion the other day about wind power and energy alternatives and whatnot?

Well folks, here's yet another real opportunity to make a positive personal impact on the environment and your wallet and save a little energy:

Tomorrow, Friday September 28th is the first ever regular Walk/Ride Day organized by Greater Portland Green Streets!

The idea behind this great initiative is to wear something green and use a green means of transportation to get to work or school or wherever you're going tomorrow.

Wear green and use green transportation modes tomorrow, Friday September 28th, on the first monthly Walk/Ride Day sponsored by Portland Green Streets.
Carey Kish photo

The wearing of the green is the easy part. But breaking old habits and deciding to use green means of transportation - even if only for one day - may not be.

But there are numerous options for most of us who live in or near the city. You need only decide to give one or more of these healthy, economical and eco-friendly means a try.

* We've got a wonderful network of urban trails in the Portland area, so why not walk?

* There are plenty of bicyling resources. And we've got bike lanes on many streets and plenty of not-so-busy neighborhood streets to ride to get you where you need to go by pedal power. You can put your bike on the bus, too, and utilize both modes!

* How about hopping the bus and let someone else do the driving while you watch the world go by?

* And carpools are one of the easiest, most effective ways to slash your commuting costs and save energy.

I'm going to celebrate Bike/Walk Day by cruising into work on my green mountain bike. Will you be wearing green and commuting green on Friday?

If you miss out, remember that Bike/Walk Day will happen on the last Friday of every month (it'll be like Commute Another Way Week, only more often!), so do plan on it!

That's what I feel like doing, if you know what I mean, after watching the Screw the View video blog today re wind power.

And believe me, after two weeks of a nasty trail and travel diet (I'm just back from hiking out west), I've got plenty of wind power of my own for just such an occasion. In fact, hook me up and I'll generate a few green kilowatts right now!

But I digress...

Screw the view you hikers, eh? Get over it you say?

Bull crap.

400-foot wind turbines atop Black Nubble, Kibby and Redington Mountains right in the heart of our western mountains? And miles of accompanying access roads and powerlines to boot?

Again I say: Bull crap.

Look, wind power is a good thing. We need it and other sources of energy in this era of excessive oil dependence and oil depletion.

But not at any price as suggested. And not just anywhere.

(And oh by the way, a la Screw the View, our brave troops are not in Iraq fighting for oil, another rarely challenged myth that toils on. If it were true, and it isn't, why wouldn't we be sucking the Iraqi oil wells dry right now? And further, when was the last new ski area built in Maine? Specious!)

Again I digress. My apologies. My unfocused state could be jet lag causing synapse dysfunction, or the severe gas I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, oh yeah, wind power.

How about energy conservation instead?

By simply incorporating more energy conservation into our daily lives, i.e. driving less, keeping our cars tuned, sealing up the house good and tight, turning off lights, using energy efficient appliances, purchasing locally-grown food and a whole host of other choices, we could easily save enough energy to offset any wind power development here in Maine.

And we'd save the mountaintop views that others feel can be screwed with (I get the tongue-in-cheek part, don't worry).

So let's get on with it. A personal energy conservation plan for each of us. One that avoids environmentally-damaging wind power projects where possible. One that aids in reducing our dependence on oil while preserving our fragile mountains and their precious views.

That's a sensible, viable plan, don't you think?

Willing seller meets willing buyer. Negotiations ensue. A transaction takes place. Real estate changes hands. A deal is done.

Happens every day in Maine. No biggie, right?

Most of the time not.

Until the buyer is Roxanne Quimby, noted millionaire of Burt's Bees fame, and now budding conservationist.

Using her wealth Quimby has purchased at least one entire Maine township and a number of other large parcels of land, much of it in the vicinity of Baxter State Park.

And just yesterday we hear that she has purchased 4,900 additional acres in two separate deals east of the park.

Some folks think this a good thing. Others don't.

There have been concerns that Quimby has or will restrict access to her lands, potentially impacting uses that are considered "traditional": hunting, snowmobiling and the like.

I did note that on one map of her lands I saw that the parcels are labeled "sanctuaries."

Interesting. What might that imply?

Others hail the idea of locking up lands and preserving them for posterity itself, human uses a secondary consideration, if at all.

Where do you stand?

Quimby, as a private landowner, is free to do with her land as she wishes, within the bounds of good sense and the law.

That's just the way it is, like it or not. And it's something to consider when it comes to Plum Creek, another private landowner of note.

Like it or not...

All too often in today's turbulent political climate, good news--any good news--from the federal government flies under the radar screen, under-reported or unreported.

Take the fact of 76,150 acres of newly designated wilderness in New England.

I hadn't heard about it. You?

It wasn't until I saw it in the most recent adition of Appalachia, the AMCs bi-annual journal of mountaineering and conservation.

Yep, last December 1st President Bush signed into law the New England Wilderness Act of 2006 (NEWA) creating 34,500 acres of Wilderness (yes, that's Wilderness with a capital W, serious business when the feds get involved) in the White Mountain National Forest, and 41,650 acres in the Green Mountain National Forest.

Whoa! That's awesome.

New England has 76,150 acres of newly designated wilderness. Who knew???
Photo by Huw Evans

Here's some specifics for reference.

In the WMNF in NH and Maine:

* Sandwich Range: 10,800 acres were added to the existing 25,000 acres in four separate units: Guinea Pond-2,823 acres, Waterville Valley-4,038 acres, Hedgehog-2,766 acres, and Ferncroft-1,144 acres.

* Wild River: The law creates a brand new wilderness area of 23,700 acres in the magnificent valley vetween the Carter-Moriah and Baldface-Royce Ranges (a very familiar stomping ground for this hiker)

In the GMNF in Vermont:

* Glastenbury: A new 22,425 acre wilderness area was created, encompassing the 3,748 summit of Glastenbury Mountain (right on the Long Trail-what a view!) and the largest area of unbroken forest in southern Vermont.

* Joseph Battell: A new 12,333 acre area protecting the ridgeline between Brandon Gap and Middlebury Gap (also on the Long Trail and a fantastic stretch of walking).

* Lye Brook: 2,338 acres added

* Breadloaf: 3,757 acres added

* Peru Peak and Big Branch: 799 acres added

The new and additional Wilderness areas will be managed by the US Forest Service under the direction of the 1964 Wilderness Act, "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

It also means the eventual loss of our good friends the Blue Brook, Spruce Brook and Perkins Notch shelters, as USFS Wilderness policy discourages man-made structures. But that will be aways off yet.

Good news about our New England outdoors. News you might never have heard amid the din of crap mucking up the airwaves.

No go on out and shoot your television, and then go hiking...

Have a good weekend!

I wonder just what the naysayers will accept?

The Natural Resources Council of Maine and Maine Audubon have denounced the latest Plum Creek development plan for the Moosehead Lake region as still too big and including "too much development in natural areas and sensitive wildlife habitats."

Surprise, surprise.

Actually, that the NRCM is still kicking up its heels doesn't surprise me. But Maine Audubon's continued opposition does.

So I must ask you both: what exactly will you support?

How many house lots? How big the resorts? Spell it out for me and everyone else.

Or are you just plain anti? Anti-timber harvesting. Anti-development. Anti-Plum Creek.

Because if you are, well, what to do? There's no where to go from that position. No room to maneuver.

Plum Creek has put its facts and figures out there (again) for all to see.

Will your organizations do that? If not, why not? What will you accept?

Now to you my dear Trail Head friends: We talked about the revised Plum Creek plan here nearly two months ago.

Have you read up on it? Given it more thought? Figured out where you stand?

I'm done thinking it over. It's time to support this plan.

That's right. I've decided... in favor of it. Solidly.

The Plum Creek plan will help create a nearly continuous swath of conservation lands from Baxter State Park west to Canada. Isn't that a good thing?
Thumb's up by Carey Kish

Why?

Just look at the map.

I see a continuous swath of conservation lands from Baxter State Park all the way to the Canadian border, ringing Moosehead Lake (with the exception of the town of Greenville).

Yes, that's right.

Baxter State Park to the Katahdin Forest Project lands to the Nahmakanta Reserve to the Roach Ponds acquisition to the AMC Katahdin Iron Works property to Plum Creek conservation framework and conservation easement lands to the West Branch Project lands.

I don't know how many tens of thousands of acres this massive conglomeration of conservation efforts--of which Plum Creek plays a key role--totals, but it's huge.

Huge spaces for all to enjoy for a wide variety outdoor pursuits. Hike, bike, bird watch, fish, hunt, ride your snowmobile, canoe and kayak and boat, watch moose, ski downhill, ski cross-country, sit on your porch and take in the view.

There are trade-offs, of course.

There will be development at Lily Bay, Big Moose Mountain and Rockwood. More people in the area, more jobs, a bit more hustle and bustle than there is now. But an economic uptick in a region sorely in need of it. Are not the people there deserving of a better life, more employment opportunities, a bigger paycheck?

Will there be problems? Yes, but managing for growth is a far different thing than reacting to it.

And there will continue to be timber harvesting on Plum Creek lands. Trees will die. And help to feed the families of loggers and truckers and sawmill owners and on down the food chain. But fortunately through the miracle of nature, trees are a renewable resource and will grow back for the next cycle.

So there you have it. My two cents.

On Plum Creek, I'm in. Big thumb's up.

How about you all? What do you say? Thoughts?

It appears there's some last minute trouble in paradise.

The concern poised to sell 8,000 acres of land near Baxter State Park to the state for $6 million--the appraised value, by the way--now says the figure "is too low."

Really?

And why now?

The property in Wassataquoik Valley was to be purchased to ameliorate parties upset over the Katahdin Lake parcel, which, as an addition to Baxter State Park, would be off limits to hunting and snowmobiling et cetera.

It was a reasonable compromise, one where each side got most of what they were looking for.

So now what?

The Gardiner Land people clearly don't seem to think it's a big whoop: "If this deal falls through, we have some other people that are interested."

Oh really. Well that's nice. A real pleasure doing business with you.

One of the potential buyers (with deeper pockets than the state apparently) is thought to be Roxanne Quimby, who has already demonstrated no love for hunting, trapping, wood harvesting and such on her other properties in the region (but hey, it's her land and that's her right).

But that ain't at all how this particular deal was supposed to go down. The Katahdin Lake parcel went to Baxter as "forever wild" and the Wassataquoik Valley was to to be sold to the state, preserved and managed for multiple use.

Shame on Gardiner if this doesn't happen.

The whole thing smells pretty damn stinky to me.

You?

I hope the Maine Department of Conservation holds Gardiner's feet real close to the fire on this one. And forces them to hold true to the original deal.

OK everybody, the new plan is here.

That's right.

Plum Creek has finally completed it revised plan for the Moosehead Lake region and submitted same to LURC.

So, my dear Trail Head friends, here is your assignment: Read the plan, look at the maps, and get back to me with your comments.

I've only just printed off the 494-page plan, and haven't but skimmed it at this point. So I'll reserve detailed comment until I've had a chance to pour through it.

I'm hoping all you concerned folks on both sides of the Plum Creek fence will do the same.

This is big. And requires some careful consideration and frank discussion. .

Plum Creek country: Mount Kineo and Moosehead Lake from the trail on Little Moose Mountain just outside Greenville.
Photo by Carey Kish

Here's a summary, according to the Plum Creek press release dated today:

* 400,000 acres of permanent conservation with public access--the 2nd largest conservation easement in U.S. history

* 90,000 acres of the conservation easement will wrap around development areas to permanently contain sprawl; includes all shore frontage owned by Plum Creek on 60 lakes and ponds and a significant portion of Moosehead Lake

* Binding P&S agreement with The Nature Conservancy, Forest Society of Maine and the Appalachian Mountain Club on 341,000 acres

* Recreational trail easements for Maine's ITS snowmobile system, a "Peak to Peak" long distance hiking trail, and the Maine Huts and Trails Nordic ski and hiking (and hopefull mountain biking) trail system

* Development zones totalling 20,500 acres for residential, non-residential and commercial uses

* 180 shorefront lots eliminated

* Development of 975 lots to be closer to existing communities, and more concentrated

* Resort-based development centered at Big Moose Mountain and Lily Bay

Dat's da brief scoop as I'm reading it folks.

OK now, you have your assignment, now let's get to work.

Read, make notes, take a good look-see at the map. Crack a cold one. Mull it over some.

Then let's talk next week...

Stetson Mountain is a long 1,000 foot high ridgeline paralleling Route 169 about halfway between Springfield and Danforth in the wilds of northern Washington County.

That's pretty much out in the middle of nowhere you might say.

And it's the location of another proposed wind power project.

LURC recently gave the thumbs down to the Redington/Black Nubble project up near the Appalachian Trail.

But it OK'd the Mars Hill project in Aroostook County, which is up and operating.

Kibby Mountain south of Jackman is slated for 44 wind turbines pending a "yeah" from LURC. But that's going to be a heated debate, given its alpine environment and a group--the Friends of the Boundary Mountains--dedicated to saving it from such development.

Then there's poor little unknown Stetson Mountain.

Who's going to stick up for it?

Does anybody care if a string of towers and turbines one day adorns its summit?

Or is Stetson a place we feel we can sacrifice?

Mars Hill already had a ski area development on it. I think some communication towers too. Maybe those factors made it an easier sell for wind power.

But don't you just get that troubling feeling inside about this issue? It cuts deep both ways.

We need the clean energy. Ever more so if you believe the apocalyptic cries of the global climate change camp.

But we want our undeveloped woods and mountains.

What's it gonna be?

What should happen at Stetson Mountain?

Day 225: The saga is finally over. The koi fish are free!

Yes, after nearly eight months in captivity, the koi fish belonging to Cuong Ly, owner of the China Rose restaurant in Freeport, are home once again.

"I am sure they are happy to be back," Ly said. "They can't talk but I can represent them. It's a happy day today."

Yes it is Mr. Ly, yes it is.

This wrong-headed misadventure by the Maine Department of Inland Fish & Wildlife has reached its proper conclusion. Not that it ever should have come this far to begin with.

But even so, the fish aren't really free, because Mr. Ly "must lock the tank and post a sign saying that koi are an invasive species and that a state permit is needed to keep them."

So the fish are really prisoners in a sense now, unable to come and go from a locked tank. And they are now publicly branded as "invasive". How that must trouble and embarrass them. Imagine the emotional distress! And the permit, the paperwork, the fees, well, that's just over the top.

Seriously, though the fish will really be fine, Mr. Ly emerges from this with a misdemeanor on his record and is some $20,000 poorer after fighting to save his precious koi. That isn't right.

And what did this episode cost the state? The taxpayers? An unnecessary bundle I'll bet.

But all that is water over the edge of the fish tank now. The pet koi fish are back and on display at the China Rose. And I can feel the good feng shui from here.

"I'm glad they're back," said Ly.

We are too sir.

Think I'll have to stop in for a visit to see the koi. And for couple of egg rolls, too, of course.

In “Beauty of trail rightly protected,” (Maine Sunday Telegram, February 11, 2007) conservationist Bob Cummings applauds LURC for their recent decision to reject the wind power project proposed for the Redington Mountains near the Appalachian Trail.

Ditto that, Bob.

It was the right idea in the wrong location. Tall towers, whirring turbines, lights, access roads and transmission lines have no place in the fragile alpine environment of our high western mountains.

Wind power has a place in our energy future on a small scale, but locating it in acceptable areas has plagued many efforts. Mars Hill in Aroostook County is one example of a wind project judged acceptable to the local people, and is now a reality. Other acceptable areas might include our blueberry barrens, farmlands, mountains and ridges with existing development, and offshore along the coast.

I am curious, however, as to why the Maine Appalachian Trail Club (of which I am a member) so strongly opposed the Redington wind project, but has apparently voted NOT to oppose a similar project slated for Kibby Mountain, a peak off to the northwest in Kibby Township.

“Members recognized, rightly, that there is a difference between an in-your-face industrial development on ridges abutting the trail corridor, and proposals involving distant ridges,” writes Cummings.

Whoa.

So, just because Kibby Mountain is not located near the Appalachian Trail corridor, is a wind project there any less damaging to the alpine environment--that precious area generally above 2,700'--of that mountain?

I have not yet hiked Kibby Mountain, but I hope to. The AMC Maine Mountain Guide describes the mountain this way: “This remote mountain is in the heart of the wilderness area north of Flagstaff Lake, east of the Chain of Ponds, and south of the Canadian Atlantic RR.” On the 3,638 foot summit of Kibby “there is an old MFS fire tower stand with outstanding and extensive views of the surrounding wilderness.”

Hmmm. Sounds pretty appealing to me. And not exactly where I’d like to see an intrusive wind power project.

So, I’m curious: Why would the well-intentioned folks at the MATC think that wind power is not okay at Redington, but that Kibby can be sacrificed? With all due respect, that smacks disappointingly of its own sort of NIMBYism, don’t you think?

We don’t want wind power ruining our view from the AT, but just up the way we don’t mind if somebody else’s view, somebody else’s favorite mountain, gets marred by development.

It doesn’t jibe. We need to be more consistent.

Further, I wonder what the folks at the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, a local group fighting to keep wind projects off the border region’s peaks, including Kibby, think of such an endorsement by the MATC?

After an unfortunate jab at “our wasteful ways” and the NIMBYs that will use any excuse to “maintain their effortless comfort” in the face of “global warming,” Cummings closes with this: “Please remember that it is still not necessary to destroy the last wild places in order to save the planet.”

Heady charges, for sure. Paradoxically, if global warming were indeed the apocalyptic threat that many seem to believe it is, then why would any wind project meet opposition?

But I digress...

Regarding the issue of conserving our high elevation wildlands: Does not the alpine environment and wilderness character of Kibby Mountain deserve equal consideration by those of us who would protect similar “wild places” nearer to the AT?

We talked a week or so ago about the tough job facing LURC in the coming months.

That maybe these folks are going to need a stiff drink or two and some time on a tropical beach somewhere when they're all through. Who could blame them?

They are, after all, responsible for zoning regulation of more than 10 million acres of "unorganized" townships in Maine. It's a hefty burden to shoulder, but that's their job.

In the current climate of fractionalization and turnover of land ownership, the pressure for short term returns by investors new to the land game, globalization of the timber industry and its decline here in Maine, increased pressure on the natural resource base by development concerns and recreational users of all stripes, it's a job I wouldn't relish.

Take a look at what's on LURCs plate in the near term alone:

* The Plum Creek plan for 1,000 house lots, 2 resorts and some 450,000 acres of conservation land
* Matt Poulstein's plan for a smaller scale resort near Millinocket Lake
* A wind power project in the Boundary Bald Mountains (Note: the Redington wind project near the AT went down by a 6-1 margin last week after LURCs staff had given it the green light).
* Review and revisions to LURCs 10-year comp plan
* Never mind the permitting review of a multitude of other smaller projects

How do you think LURCs land use decisions will affect the future of Maine's North Woods?
Photo by Carey Kish

Do the LURC folks have the resources they need to meet the demands placed on them?

Hard telling. And it depends on who you ask.

There isn't a state agency worth its salt that wouldn't take more money and manpower if offered. But this state is in no position to dole out any extras at this point.

Director Catherine Carroll seems to indicate that LURC can-do and will make-do just fine with the resources at hand.

Others, like RESTORE, question whether the agency is "understaffed and overworked" and don't seem to like the agency's perceived rubber-stamp approach to some development projects.

Who's right? What to do?

Development--where, when and how it is allowed--will largely determine what Maine's North Woods will look like in the future. And those decisions are the purview of LURC, its staff and directors.

But remember, LURC doesn't work in a vacuum. It's work is more in the public eye than ever. And the process allows for plenty of public input along the way, something Mainers are pretty darn good at.

That's why I have faith in their competence and professionalism and with that, trust that they can and will make the right decisions.

What do you think?

It can't be a fun time to be a member of LURC, Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, right now.

There's some tough sledding to be had for these folks, what with the Redington Wind Turbine Project up for final review, and the whole Plum Creek development and conservation plan coming fast on its heels.

The people at LURC are just ordinary Joes like you and me, but they've got to make some big decisions on some highly publicized and controversial projects affecting the unorganized townships under their charge.

By the time all is said and done these folks are gonna need a good dose of valium and maybe a stiff drink of two just to see straight.

I don't envy them a'tall. Nope.

Speaking of those decisions, I hope they rule against the Redington wind power project.

It took me a long time and a bit o'changing my mind, but I finally came to the opinion that the summits of our western mountains just aren't the proper place for 300-foot wind towers and their associated access roads and transmission lines.

I must say I'm perplexed by the comment made at the hearing by the attorney for Maine Mountain Power Jeff Thaler that "this is not a remote, pristine part of the state."

Uh, Mr. Thaler, have you been to the proposed Stratton-Carrabassett area?

Yes, there's industrial forestry and a ski resort and villages where people live and work, but really, 'remote' and 'pristine' practically define the area's character, perceived if not entirely real.

So, no wind towers in sight of our Appalachian Trail please.

But I have a good sense that the project will pass LURC muster anyway.

Then there's Plum Creek development and conservation plan for the Moosehead Lake region (pass the valium and shot glasses for the LURCers please).

Plum Creek has pulled their latest plan iteration and is re-tooling one final time before presenting to LURC for review and approval.

And I hope they get it.

Provided they are crafty enough the concentrate their proposed development, which seems to be the biggest sticking point. With that and the more than 400,000 some acres in an impressively wide arc of contiguous multiple-use lands stretching from Greenville nearly to Canada in conservation easement, it's a winner in my view.

We'll see.

Good luck to the folks at LURC who are doing the best job they can. A tough, thankless one at that.

Believe it or not, the Katahdin Lake land acquisition project is close to becoming a reality.

Since the start of the campaign nearly a year ago the Trust for Public Lands has raised an impressive $11.2 million.

But that's still $1.8 mil short of the total $14 million needed to seal the deal, however. (A private foundation has pledged to match the final million raised).

Let's recap the tremendous importance of this project for all of us who cherish the Maine outdoors, all petty bickering over politics and traditional uses and so forth aside:

When (not if) this thing gets inked, 4,000 acres of land surrounding pristine Katahdin Lake will be added to Baxter State Park, fulfilling Percival Baxter's long-held dream. Another adjoining 2,000 acres will be owned and managed by the Maine Bureau of Public Lands.

It's hard to argue with this one. So let's not. Especially with a December 15th deadline looming.

It could very well be up to you and me (lots of you's and me's actually) to make the difference heading into the home stretch.

So empty out your change jars. Shuffle through pockets for spare bills. Take out your checkbook and write a check. Shake down friends and family and co-workers.

The Trust for Public Lands can and will gladly accept any and all donations, regardless of size, right online even.

Do what you can, then we can each proudly claim a stake in the ownership of Katahdin Lake.

You've got to hand it to officials at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife. They're tough.

Yep. You wanna have some koi fish around as pets, you're gonna pay. Of course it may take them 15 years to find out that you have them, but then watch out!

Like the poor Freeport restaurant owner Cuong Luy. Real criminal he is.

After considerable ado (mostly about nothing) the DIFW has decided to allow Ly to keep his ornamental fish, but only if he does so away from public view.

Which to Ly kills the feng shui of it all.

Further, Ly's koi must have microchips implanted in them for future tracking, he must submit to regular fish tank inspections and must notify the state within 24 hours of the demise of any of his koi.

Brilliant!

Yet more evidence of why more and more people are losing faith in their government at all levels.

How much has this charade by state fish and wildlife officials cost to date? How much will this ridiculous ruling cost in the future?

Mr. Ly says he has suffered "great unhappiness" since his precious pets were conficated by the DIFW.

Funny, I'm suffering great unhappiness too, given that the DIFW is wasting an inordinate amount of time and money on this silly issue and is making themselves look pretty foolish in the process.

Take Mr. Ly at his word. An honest man's word. Give him his permit and be done with it. No strings attached.

And the next time I go for a plate of cashew chicken at the China Rose in Freeport I want to see those fish happily swimming around, entertaining hungry diners and filling the room with good feng shui.

A special Halloween aside (and why you should never, ever, ever say you've seen it all):

Portland attorney and former gubernatorial candidate Thom Connelly was arrested along I-295 this AM dressed as Osama bin Laden, waving a fake rifle and carrying a sign "I love TABOR."

I swear when that news flashed I came pretty close to needing some Depends!

It's quite a world we live in, ain't it?! Hardly a dull moment. Especially here in dear old Maine...

Yep, the Nature Conservancy has bitten hard on the Plum Creek deal, agreeing to pay the big bad timber barons some $35 million to preserve 345,000 acres of forestland around Moosehead Lake..

Do the math and it works out to $101 per acre. That's cheap real estate these days. And a small price to pay to conserve a huge chunk of Maine's north woods.

Smart, too. The conservation easement will preserve 270,000 acres of land against future development while allowing timber harvesting and recreational access to continue ad infinitum. The remaining 75,000 acres will be purchased outright.

Yes, there's the matter of the two resorts and 950 house lots to be developed. But development is happening in the Moosehead region already, with more on the way. Better if it were planned and concentrated as Plum Creek has proposed, rather than sprouting willy-nilly as has been the case.

This conservation easement will be the second largest in the U.S. and will create a contiguous swath of protected lands from Baxter State Park west to Canada and north to the St. John River. A million and a half acres.

Read the above again if you would please. And then, when you get off the floor and back into your chair, kindly tell me what anyone truly interested in a balanced approach to conservation and economic development could possibly see bad in this deal.

It's a plum. And it tastes good. And I hope the folks at LURC swallow it whole when the time comes to give the project the final thumbs up.

Kudos to the forward-thinking people from the Nature Conservancy, Appalachian Mountain Club, Forest Society of Maine and others who've negotiated hard to make this happen.

And to Plum Creek and what I view as a commendable effort to work forthrightly with the State of Maine, conservation organzations and a concerned public to craft a workable, balanced plan.

Your thoughts?

Think our trails, shelters and campgrounds are crowded now? A few too many people on our lakes, rivers and coast? The roads to and from a little too busy?

Well folks, it ain't gonna get any better.

Today the U.S. hits the 300,000,000 mark in population.

That's a lotta zeros (no pun intended). A lot less space for you and me.

And why I continue to avoid, as far as possible, the marquis outdoor destinations and seek out the little known places in the backcountry. A task that gets tougher and tougher. But it is oh so satisfying.

Like a couple weeks ago, for example, in the busy Adirondacks, just hours from many millions of people. We passed only 8 backpackers and never shared a lean-to in 11 days and 123 miles of hiking.

I felt like I was cheating the system or something. What a bonus, though!

But it wasn't all luck. Pick the right place and the right time of year and oft times you can find some precious solitude.

Anyway, guess we'd better get to loving our neighbors, 'cause we're going to have a lot more them, in town and on the trail!

The Appalachian Mountain Club has just announced the purchase of a third set of sporting camps in the 100-mile wilderness region near its 37,000 acre Katahdin Iron Works property.

The Chairback Mountain Camps, situated on magnificent Long Pond, will be open to the public late next year. The purchase preserves these historic camps and expands opportunities for rustic lodging and recreation for the general public amid thousands of acres of deep woods beauty.

AMC bought a second sporting camp operation, the Medawisla Wilderness Camps, just last month. And in late 2003 it purchased the Little Lyford Pond Camps near the spectacular canyon of Gulf Hagas and the Appalachian Trail.

The AMC is doing a lot good things in this region. I wholely support their efforts and commend them on a job well done to date.

I was a skeptic at first, thinking that they might try to close the area off to traditional uses. But that simply has not been the case at all.

In their own words, "The AMCs Maine Woods Initiative seeks to address the ecological and economic needs of the Maine Woods region by supporting local forest products jobs and traditional recreation, creating new multi-day recreational experiences for visitors, and attracting new nature-based tourism to the region."

I visited the AMC operation at Little Lyford a year ago, toured the property with their land manager and scientists, and learned a great deal about their goals.

They're doing it right. And I believe we--hikers and outdoor enthusiasts alike--will benefit, as will the very land itself, by their forward thinking conservation efforts.

Kudos AMC.

There was big talking going on last night at Sugarloaf about the proposed wind turbine project to be located just a few miles to the west on the crest of the Redington Mountains.

The folks at LURC, who will ultimately give the thumbs up or down to the project, apparently got quite an earful from both sides.

The issue has caused many of us who care deeply about Maine's environment while recognizing our need for cleaner domestic energy to do some heavy thinking and soul searching.

At what price do we give the nod to wind towers on mountaintops in sight of the Appalachian Trail?

At what point do we seriously say "enough" to OPEC and steer a new path toward renewable energy sources?

At the very least, the matter is forcing us to confront reality. Our choices are here. Now. Amid global energy instability in an increasingly uncertain world.

Scott Cowger is right. This will be a "watershed event" for us in Maine.

But I don't believe for a moment that its all or nothing. If it doesn't happen at Redington it's not the end for wind power in Maine.

Will there be wind power in Maine? Maybe. But where?Your backyard? Mine? Who's?

I no longer support this project.

But I do support wind power development in other areas of Maine. Along the coast. In blueberry barrens. On farms. In more developed areas.

There are other options besides our western mountains, where wind turbines would cause enormous and unacceptable visual pollution.

But then, there's going to be visual effects regardless of the location. And that will have to be debated.

Hopefully, we can and will agree on acceptable sites and make the bold move of developing wind energy here in Maine. Sooner rather than later.

But unfortunately, Redington isn't the place.

What are your thoughts?

Uh oh. It's happened again.

More land has been conserved for multiple recreational uses while allowing sustainable forest practices to continue.

That's right.

The state has just taken ownership of nearly 200,000 acres in and around Baxter State Park and the Machias River through easement and fee acquisition, in a deal with the Nature Conservancy.

The lands will be managed by the Department of Conservation and will likely become part of the public reserved lands system.

Check out this map to see what this deal means for conservation efforts around Baxter.

Outstanding.

It's the best of both worlds, in my view.

Access is preserved. Nobody gets locked out.

Hikers, backpackers, hunters, fishermen, skiers, snowmobilers. You name it, we can use it.

Industrial forestry and all its direct and peripheral jobs and services will continue. The land can produce its timber and we can continue to harvest it.

Wood, water, wildlife, recreation.

A big win-win.

Given enough time, I knew they'd eventually re-emerge from the bushes.

Yep, the anti-development, anti-business, anti-timber harvesting folks are back, this time as the Save Moosehead Coalition. And they're vehemently opposing the Plum Creek development and conservation plan.

Good to see you again. I was getting worried.

Let's see... there's the Forest Ecology Network and the we're-against-all-timber-harvesting crew, the RESTORE-we-want-to-make-Maine-into-one-big-national-park crowd, and the American Lands Alliance and Friends of the Earth, a couple of groups out of the center of the elitist universe, Washington, D.C.

Be honest with us, will ya folks?!

You don't want development. Any development. So no amount of tinkering with the number of subdivision lots by Plum Creek is going to satisfy you.

You don't understand the science of silviculture or the business of forestry. Or you don't care to. Cutting any trees is taboo to you. So, again, no amount of conservation by Plum Creek will bring you around.

Jonathan Carter calls the plan "nonsense," that "their sprawl proposal is about dollars and cents."

Well, gee Jon, it kind of is. Imagine!

Imagine that a large private landowner, which also happens to be a large--hold onto your hats now--CORPORATION, wants to make money on its investment.

The nerve!

Further, that this investment might just be a boon to the local economy which has been in serious decline for 20 years. A local economy that includes real people who lead real lives and need to make real livings for themselves and their families.

And you'd like to deny them that?

Who's the hard-liner here?

That answer is pretty clear.

Let me tell you: When I look at the map of conservation lands that are existing and proposed around the Moosehead Lake region, I'm pretty damn impressed.

The green colors of the land conserved by public and private purchase or by conservation easement--and now including the Plum Creek lands--forms an incredible connecting arc from Baxter State Park nearly all the way west to the Canadian border, to the north and south of Moosehead Lake.

Do you know what that means for outdoor enthusiasts of all stripes?

It means a huge, nearly contiguous area of hundreds of thousands of acres of Maine forestland that is protected by conservation easement, available for the use and enjoyment of the public, while also available for use by the forest products and related industries.

I don't see that as a bad thing. Quite the opposite.

And yet for some, a vocal, out-of-touch and unsatisfiable minority, it isn't good enough.

Spell it out for me, please. Instead of continuing to rip Plum Creek and its supporters, tell us clearly and specifically: What is your plan?

What IS your plan?

By the way, I continue to get a kick out of the RESTORE folks who say stuff like this: "the [Plum Creek] ads are misleading because the conservation measures are not tied to the LURC application. By implying otherwise, Plum Creek is 'blurring the lines' and confusing Maine residents."

Now, would that "blurring" and "confusing" be anything like RESTORE printing up misleading brochures about a non-existent Maine Woods National Park and distributing them to the public as if it were a faits accomplis? Hmmm.

Finally, if you're not sure what a conservation easement is, and I believe it to be a very misunderstood term, click through for an explanation. Plum Creek's plan includes 400,000 acres of conservation easements. That's a really good thing that some just don't want you to know about.

And be sure to add your comments to today's updated news story.

The comments are coming in hot and heavy on the Plum Creek plan today.

Thus far you'd think that Plum Creek was as bad as Big Tobacco or Big Oil, those hated multinational orgs interested only in making profits and squashing the little guy.

So take a look-see and add your voice to the mix, pro or con. It's what makes our country great.

In the meantime I'm gonna go make some popcorn, then come back to see more of the Plum Creek show...

Katahdin Lake and the surrounding 4,000 acres are now part of Baxter State Park. And an adjoining 2,000 is now under Maine Department of Conservation management.

Although it was a heated debate, it was a healthy one. And the result is that the Gov inked the bill yesterday. Done deal.

I think we all benefit with this compromise solution. A stunningly beautiful piece of land coveted by Percival Baxter himself has now been brought into the park fold some 30-odd years after his death.

The Katahdin Lake parcel will be closed to hunting and motorized recreational uses. But the state-owned piece will continue to support these traditional uses, something many of us wanted to see.

Could we have done better? Probably not. It's a reasonable win-win in my book.

Now I'm looking forward to getting up to Katahdin Lake, throwing on a backpack and exploring some new backcountry turf, and getting a different angle on the mountain we all love so much.

Just a scant couple of days before Earth Day--the 37th anniversary of the much-heralded event--I came across an interesting column on the environmental movement in today's Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper of Harvard University, that's worth sharing.

Piotr Brzezinski opens "Requiem for Environmentalism" with quite a bang: Having lost its credibility with alarmist rhetoric and obsolete ideological ballast, the movement must develop a moderate discourse while challenging its previous assumptions and outdated theories.

Whoa.

I've been carping on the nauseating din of environmental alarmism for some time, the shrill the-sky-is-falling screams of impending doom and gloom.

Brzezinski puts his finger right on it. And in it.

The environemtal message, however important, when couched in such a way, isn't resonating with Joe Public. I know it never did with me.

Is there anyone among us that doesn't care for the environment?

I doubt it.

But every problem need not be cast as end-of-the-world.

"Be Worried, Be Very Worried": was a recent headline in Time, referring to global warming.

Please!

"Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. environment is getting healthier," writes Brzezinski.

He's correct.

For example, our lakes, rivers and coastlines are cleaner than they were 30 years ago. The land is covered by more forests now, not less.

Are there serious local, domestic and global environmental problems?

Absolutely.

Industrial pollution, an energy deficit, rainforest decimation, food shortages and a few too many others to note here.

But these issues are being dealt with. Maybe not so well or quick enough in the myopic eye of a human lifetime, but they are. Human ingenuity and improved technology are being harnessed. The natural caring we humans have for our environment compels us to act, and we do, and always will, to improve our world. Because it is the right thing to do.

Brzezinski closes with sound advice for re-tooling the environmental message: Until environmentalists cease depending on nightmare scenarios, they will fail to influence the public at large. Let the next generation of environmentalists begin to reestablish the movement’s credibility by exploring currently heretical ideas and producing moderate, nuanced reports, even if they do not make for good press.

Well said.

So, let's celebrate Earth Day! This Saturday and every day. Yes, it's a difficult, complex world with lots of problems, environmental and otherwise. But it's also a beautiful world with lots of good people and ever-emerging solutions. Let's celebrate that, too.

Just in case you've missed the PR barrage on TV, you can check out the details of the new and improved Plum Creek plan online.

It outlines the conservation, economic development, recreation and public access components, as well as how the plan has evolved through input from a host of outside sources, and answers some FAQs.

I haven't gone through the whole thing yet. But I'm printing off a copy now to place in the john at home, where I can read it in a more comtemplative and relaxed state.

I'll get back to you with my comments soon.

If you have any for me on this in the meantime, feel free to post them here.

Just in case you missed it, there's more details out today about the conservation portion of the Plum Creek plan.

Read about it here.

Do note this fact: "The conservation easement would be the second-largest in Maine and one of the largest in the nation."

That's impressive. Good work folks.

I'd enjoy hearing your comments, if you've got the energy for it on this Friday afternoon.

More news is due on the development plan next week. Stay tuned.

Have a terrific weekend all.

I'm headed out for some backpacking up the coast aways.

You?

This just might do it, folks.

There's breaking news that a win-win deal has been reached between Plum Creek, The Nature Conservancy, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Forest Society of Maine.

After all the back and forth. The heated debates. And some nasty exchanges.

Doesn't that just make your day? It sure does mine.

Thanks to all parties for their hard work, their patient but diligent approach. You've done it!

Thank you.

Here's a few brief highlights of the revised Plum Creek plan, the "Conservation Framework" as it has been called, for the Moosehead Region lands:

* Permanent protection for ecologically significant lands
* Continued public access
* Maintenance of working forests
* A more responsible development plan

There's certainly more details to come, but the preliminaries looks good at this point.

Alan Hutchinson, Executive Director of the Forest Society of Maine, says it best in my view:

“This agreement embraces the traditions and values of Maine. Hunting, fishing, camping and other traditional recreational activities will be assured, valuable fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, and communities will benefit as these lands are sustainably managed for recreational activities and forest products.”

I think that's the end result that most reasonable people were looking for. And it appears we got it.

I am just plain tickled.

OK, I'm going outside now and jump up and down with joy. And maybe get some lunch, too.

The legislature will vote on the Katahdin Lake land deal today.

How it will pan out among the three options: hunting, no hunting, or a combination of the two is anybody's guess.

But it was heartening to learn that Buzz Caverly, former Baxter State Park director and a man with unquestionable credentials, had formally come out on the side of compromise.

I hope our lawmakers heed his advice. And see to it that each side gets a share of the pie.

The real winners will be us, Joe and Jane public, who will benefit from 6,000-something acres to play on. Protected forever. Nice.

Get it done folks.

Yes, the clock is ticking on the Katahdin Lake land deal.

But we've got plenty of good people on the case. Legislators, conservationists, outdoorspeople, you name it.

And that makes me very confident that this deal to protect the Katahdin Lake property is going to be worked out.

Sure, there are questions now on how to restructure the deal to make the best accommodations for the people of Maine. And that is apparently holding up fundraising and making some folks nervous.

That's understandable. But it's a temporary hold-up while the process gets worked through.

Look, there's no way that we're going to let this precious parcel of land NOT be preserved.

No way.

I believe that. And have faith that it will work out. That good people will do the right things to make it happen.

And in the end, our conservation community, those many factions that care deeply about the Maine woods, will be a stronger lot because of it.

Trail Head reader Ken has launched a new website on the Katahdin Lake land deal that's worth visiting.

The Katahdin Lake proposal is yet another hot and unfortunately divisive issue that bears much serious consideration and conversation.

Take a look see and add your comments.

By the way, I understand there's a compromise proposal on the table to make the area in and around Katahdin Lake part of Baxter State Park, while the northern section would remain open to traditional uses under state ownership.

That could work.

Maine Conservation Commissioner Pat McGowan was on the radio this AM talking about the Katahdin Lake land deal.

Listen in and hear his take on the proposal.

You can take it from there.

As for me, I'm not a hunter. I don't even play one on TV.

I'm a hiker.

That said, I simply can't understand why the two factions can't get along. Has it always been this way and I just haven't paid attention?

I hike in the 750,000 acre White Mountain National Forest, the 500,000 acres of the Maine Public Reserve lands, countless trails on private property. And share these places with those who hunt.

By October and November each year, when the vast majority of hunters are outside and active, the vast majority of hikers are not. For me and others who enjoy extending the hiking season into the cold fall weather, we don some blaze orange and hike on.

What is the big deal? Really?

With Katahdin Lake we're not talking about mixing motorized recreation with non-motorized recreation. And that makes sense to me. It's hikers and hunters. No machines.

Sorry, but I'm just not the exclusionary type. That's what I see going on here. And it's the only reason why I have trouble with this proposal that would preserve a fine chunk of the Maine woods for all of us.

What I am missing?

The Katahdin Lake land deal and the proposed ban on hunting was the topic of conversation earlier today on the WGAN Morning News.

Kicking the matter around for awhile, Ken and Mike, the show's co-hosts, as well as a number of callers all seemed to be asking the same thing: What's the big deal? Don't hunters have enough land to hunt on already?

George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, came on the program shortly after and laid it out quite well just exactly why it was a big deal that hunters and hunting not be excluded from Katahdin Lake.

Listen to the interview with Smith and the interesting argument he makes.

Here's my synopsis with a few comments of my own:

1. Hunters are the primary users of the Katahdin Lake property now.

2. Hunters were excluded from the process from the start, from a deal that seeks to acquire land for "public" use. Exclusion is never a good tactic.

3. When the Togue Pond parcel was acquired and ceded to Baxter State Park a few years ago, it was done so to allow hunting. So why not now, with this deal? This one really baffles me. OK then, but not now. Why?

4. The land seller (Gardner) is pro-hunting.

5. Attorney General Steve Rowe, who is one of three members of the Baxter State Park Authority, has apparently said he won't accept the land into Baxter if hunting is allowed.

6. Seems the AG is losing sight of the goal: to purchase and protect a beautiful piece of the Maine woods. Big time myopia here!

7. Why not restructure the deal and get the state to buy the land, adding it to the thousands of acres of Maine public lands that allow traditional uses? Exactly. Make it a part of the Maine Public Lands system.

8. Hunters are active only in October and November, after Baxter State Park is closed for camping and use drops to a fraction. Interesting fact.

9. Governor Baxter, while not a fan of hunting, respected the local people and their traditions, and thus was not opposed to hunting. Baxter was respectful and inclusive. A good model to follow.

You make some valid points, George. Worth consideration.

What do you all think? Can we recreationa enthusiasts co-exist? Can we get the deal done with hunting, or no?

Tell me, cuz I wanna know... (please, of course).

Yes, it's the classic Rodney King line.

But with regard to the unexpectedly heated battle over the Katahdin Lake parcel, it's a question worth asking.

Baxter acquisition supporters feel "bullied" by the hunting lobby.

Millinocket area locals feel demeaned and put-upon by "outside" interests.

So we're fighting a fight to save a beautiful chunk of the Maine woods. An unnecessary fight in my view. Against each other.

Both sides want the same outcome: the preservation of the 6,000 acre Katahdin Lake property.

With all due respect to the sports who enjoy motorized recreation like snowmobiling and ATVs, they're going to be left out of the deal. I can understand that part. Motorized recreation has its place, but I don't think it's here.

The sticking point comes down to this:

One side wants wilderness only. The other wants hunting to remain.

How close can you get?

We hikers enjoy the White Mountain National Forest, and hunting is allowed there. We enjoy the diverse lands of the Maine Public Reserve Land system, and hunting is allowed there. We enjoy ten of thousands of acres of private property where hunting is allowed.

Why is it that suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly) hikers and hunters can't co-exist?

Why the animosity?

I don't get it.

Where did we get off onto this unproductive track? A track that's leading nowhere. And one that may ultimately cost us a fine parcel of woods and waters.

We're all outdoorspeople and sportspeople (that sounds a bit odd but it's my rare shot at PC here). Aren't we a stronger force against the tide of development when we work together?

Toss that one around and let me know what you think.

In the heat of the discussion the other day on the battle over preservation of the Katahdin Lake parcel, and if that would or would not exclude hunting, I missed an interesting proposal.

Rep. Stan Moody (D-Manchester) proposed to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee the possibility that the state could take over the land rather than having it become part of Baxter State Park.

Good plan, Stan.

That's my solution, too. And I think it's a very reasonable one.

Under state control Katahdin Lake would become part of the Maine Public Reserve Lands system, which already protects and manages nearly 500,000 acres for multiple uses, i.e. a wide variety of traditional uses are allowed.

Now there's a heckuva compromise.

The important thing is the conservation of this parcel, isn't it? To protect these 6,000 acres now, before the June deadline set for the deal by the landowner.

Does it really matter who controls it?

Not really.

Get it done, folks.

And then we'll all have another beautiful piece of wild Maine backcountry to enjoy forever.

As far as the wind power project proposed for the mountaintops in Maine's Redington Range, Bob Cummings pretty much nails it in his guest column today.

Cummings says "yes" to wind power as part of our future energy mix. But "no" to locating a wind farm on some of our high peaks in direct view of the Appalachian Trail corridor.

I agree.

Now that may, understandably, sound NIMBYish.

As Bob says, wind can and should be part of our new energy plan. But if the visual and physical impact is going to be so severe, as it will be in the Redington case, can we justify it?

No.

It hurts to say so, but no.

I take issue with terming the wind project developer in this case an "intruder", and then villifying the company with facts and figures on the size and scope of the project.

That doesn't help the matter.

Any wind project is going to be big and intrusive and have environmental impacts. Not just the Redington proposal. And not just Endless Energy.

Let's be fair.

So...

What now?

Where are we going to hide the wind elephant, this thing that most everybody agrees is good, but that nobody wants near them and their viewshed?

When I tell you I think a better location might be along Maine's coastline, what will you say?

No way?

Nah, uh. Never!

Then what?

I found some good information that can serve as a starting point for consideration of wind power projects in a coastal environment. Check out the 'Who Says What' page for sure. That'll give you reading material on the topic for awhile.

Give it a look see, sort through it, and let me know your thoughts.

Who are they?

Hunters apparently.

According to John Glowa of South China anyway, who spoke at yesterday's hearing on the proposal to preserve Katahdin Lake and 6,000 surrounding acres as part of Baxter State Park. The plan as currently drafted will ban hunters as well as motorized recreational vehicles.

"Hunters, trappers and snowmobilers do not have a lock on Maine's outdoors and Maine's outdoor heritage. As one of the 90 percent of Mainers who don't hunt, I am tired of the outdoor extremists trying to impose their wills on the rest of us."

Well, I'm really not sure at this moment whether I'm going to pee my pants right here with laughter, or vomit my breakfast all over my laptop in disgust.

Maine's outdoor heritage just happens to include a tradition of access to lands for all types of recreational and sporting uses.

Not just the ones that you like.

Who's the real extremist here?

You guess.

And then there's Alfred Cooper, operator of Katahdin Lake Camps:

"I resent the fact that they're treating me like I'm inferior in some way because I like to hunt and trap. It's my heritage."

Cooper and others want lawmakers to ensure that the plan maintains traditional uses on the Katahdin Lake parcel.

Damn straight. Damn straight.

Further, as I understand it from a bicycling advocate friend, there'll be no mountain bikes allowed. And that would exclude differently-abled persons who use mountain bikes as their way of accessing and enjoying the backcountry.

That puts it right over the edge for me.

Let the deal fall apart. And maybe then folks will realize where they've gone wrong and come back to the table.

A preserved Katahdin Lake property will be a wonderful asset for the people of Maine, whether it is protected as part of Baxter State Park or as Maine Public Reserve Land, where many outdoor uses co-exist.

And it's this conservation part that really matters most of all, isn't it?

Isn't it??

So why not recognize the big picture?

Outdoor extremists. Jeez.

Yeah, now that's the spirit.

Hey you, Plum Creek, get out. We don't don't want you and your corporate kind here.

And don't let the door hit you on the bum on your way out.

Or so today's guest column in the Portland Press Herald appears to say regarding the Plum Creek Moosehead Lake region proposal. (I know. Yawn!).

I would be grateful only if Plum Creek folded its corporatist tent and took its playground to one of their three other states of operation.

That's nice.

Let's further disparage "wealthy out-of-staters" and now our Canadian neighbors.

Let's savage the "corporatists" some more.

Talk about tired rhetoric. There's some for you.

Out-of-staters = bad?

For goodness sake, our state would be broke without visitors from away spending gobs of money here! You know about that little cottage industry we've got going here called "tourism," right?

And while we're at it, let's also knock the folks at LURC who are overseeing the regulatory process re Plum Creek. And all the concerned local folks who've participated in the public process. And the economic development folks. And the environmental and recreational people and sportsmen who've spoken their minds and added their comments.

These good people, real people--the "living, breathing beings" as they've been referred to--have engaged Plum Creek. And their efforts are having a positive effect. They are moving the process. In response, Plum Creek has indicated it's making significant adjustments to its plan. Changes that are hopefully reasonable enough to satisfy both sides.

And I am hopeful.

Plum Creek IS going to happen. And, yes, it is going to have a major impact on the Maine's north woods.

Not everybody is happy about all of it, for sure. Me, you, others. Change is difficult and the uncertainty is real. That makes people understandibly anxious.

But we can't (forgive the tired phrase, please) bury our heads in the sand and hope the big, bad corporate monster just goes away.

By engaging Plum Creek as has been done we are helping to mold the project into something better than what might have been.

I know a lot of folks in the outdoors community who in their hearts oppose Plum Creek, but realizing this fact, have come to see opportunity as the path to take, rather than blunt opposition.

I agree.

Much as some would like, there'll be no gate at the NH border with a KEEP OUT sign. We're better than that. Smarter than that.

Well, as far as new funding for conservation goes anyway.

Yes, that's right.

A Maine land conservation project in Grafton Notch topped out at #1 in the country on the federal to-do list of projects to fund this year.

$2 million bucks is on the table to purchase nearly 4,000 acres to help fill in a gap near Grafton Notch State Park, a magnificent area of lofty mountains, steep rock walls and wild forests. A favorite of mine and no doubt yours.

The newly protected parcel is near where the Appalachian Trail cuts through the notch. And soon--this summer I believe--the western half of the 42-mile long Grafton Loop Trail will be complete and will pass thruough it, too.

Finishing a respectable 11th on the same funding list is a plan to protect some 42,000 acres of my old stomping grounds around Chick Hill east of Bangor.

All good news for us hikers and backpackers and outdoors lovers to celebrate.

On the Grafton Loop Trail looking towards Sunday River Whitecap near where 4,000 acres is proposed for acquisition with new federal funding.

Call it "An Act to Deter Environmental Terrorism in the State" or "An Act to Strengthen the Crime of Aggravated Criminal Mischief."

I don't care.

But please Rep. Nutting (D-Leeds), get this measure up for a vote by the full legislature. It makes perfect sense. I, for one, applaud you. Thank you for your efforts.

That vicious attacks on Maine people's homes and property and businesses can be classified right now as only a misdemeanor is a travesty all on its own.

The recent spate of attacks on Plum Creek property and that of its employees is shameful and disgusting. I don't care what your cause is. It's wrong.

You may call it vandalism. Others may call it eco-terrorism. As do I.

Whatever you call it, make the crime a felony.

Good people don't address differences in this state by such lawless measures. We love and respect our environment and each other. And we don't--and we won't--tolerate such vile acts.

Not today. Not ever.

To those legislators who are exhibiting signs of a weak spine over such a measure, I suggest a heavy dose of calcium to shore your bones up.

Eco-terrorism is serious. And unacceptable in Maine. Make it so. Make it a felony.

Sorry, I guess I missed the fine print when the news of the Katahdin Lake land swap appeared recently.

I figured it was a done deal and everybody was a happy camper.

Not so, aparently.

I understand now that the parties involved in the swap want this new parcel that will be added to Baxter State Park to be off limits to hunting.

Why is it necessary to exclude hunting?

And where does that leave the sporting camp operation on Katahdin Lake that will be left in the middle of the deal?

Proponents of the hunting ban say it is part of Governor Baxter's dream that the Katahdin Lake parcel one day be part of the park and that there be no hunting.

Well, that's a nice idea and all, but what did the Gov have to say about the hunting that is allowed in the huge scientific management area in the northern reaches of the park? And the southern section that now includes the Togue Ponds?

Why there and not elsewhere?

Why fight over this?

With this new preservation effort also comes the banning of most motorized uses--no snowmobiles or ATVs, for example. Their incompatability with the concept of "wilderness" is more understandable.

But then, why will float planes still have access?

The Katahdin Lake area has been used by hunters for years. And I'm figuring that most sportsmen would like to continue to use these beautiful lands to pursue their relatively low impact sport.

I see a lot of inconsistencies swirling around what I had happily thought was a done deal, and a pretty satisfactory one to most parties.

I stand corrected. And hope the issue can be cleared up without a big to-do.

Let the hunters stay.

Wind power.

A clean, renewable source of energy.

Other states in the U.S. are tapping into it to add to their energy budget and help meet our hunger for energy.

Will Maine?

We've talked about the current wind energy proposals for Maine here and elsewhere before, and the impact it will have, if carried through, on the Appalachian Trail, our western mountains, on our recreational experience.

Steven Clark provided the "con" side of the issue last Tuesday, arguing vehemently against the "industrialization" of our mountains. If you missed it, click through and give it a good reading.

Today, Jeffrey Thayer offers up the "pro", his view of the benefits of such a wind power project. Make sure you read his points too.

Look, we've got a big problem on our hands: Energy.

Never mind that we use an ungodly amount of it each day, but that we are so dependent on oil, much of which comes from an increasingly fragile, dangerous and uncertain part of the globe.

Diversification of our energy budget is vital to our future. And there are a myriad of ways to do so. Our energy technology is advancing at a rapid rate and, I believe, can and will help solve this problem sooner rather than later with viable, economical alternatives.

Provided we have the will.

But as I, and others have asked: Must we sacrifice the AT and our mountaintops to do so?

I'm torn. You're torn.

Real, hard choices lie ahead. This is one of them.

Choices that can't be skirted, or pushed ahead any longer, but rather met head on. Very soon. Now really.

What will we do?

I really don't know. Let's discuss...

It's not a done deal quite yet, but if preservationists get their way--and I hope they do--pristine Katahdin Lake and its environs may one day become a part of Baxter State Park.

The Trust for Public Land is currently working out a combination land purchase and land swap that would bring the 6,000 acre Katahdin Lake parcel into the Baxter fold. It has until summer to hammer out the details and ink the deal.

It's an expensive project--$14 million to be exact. But the group has already raised $3 mil and seems confident it can raise the rest. And it's worth the price.

Pristine Katahdin Lake is a sweet place in its own right. This is no road access to it, and from its shores is that most grand and famous view of Mount Katahdin. The parcel also contains significant stands of old growth forest.

Gardner Land Company of Lincoln will receive some cash in the transaction, as well as an amount of timberland elsewhere in the area up to the total value of the deal.

Preservation of Katahdin Lake thankfully doesn't mean that the currently operating sporting camp on the lake will have to go, nor does it mean the banning of existing float plane or motorboat use. These traditional uses are being preserved as well, as they should be.

Nicely done folks. Kudos to all.

Seems like everybody wins in this case.

And that should put a smile on every Maine outdoors lover.

Bob Mentzinger, in his outdoors column today, bemoans the current spell of unseasonably warm weather and the resulting dismal ski season to date.

I'm with you Bob. On that anyway. It's been grim.

Mentzinger goes on a bit about global warming, and while he doesn't directly link our January warm spell and lousy shussing to it, you can infer a connection.

I appreciate the sentiments, but I think that may be a stretch.

Our global climate has been always been subject to natural cyclical fluctuations in temperature. And while human activity does contribute to the problem, I question its impact and whether it is truly significant. In the rather myopic view over the short span of a human lifetime--our normal frame of reference--yes.

But in the grand scheme of things, over the course of many millenia, I wonder. And therefore, I put more stock in the notion that nature and the naturally occurring forces and events in and on the earth account for the lion's share of climate change over the long term.

But I don't figure that to mean we should sit on our hands.

I agree with Mentzinger that we should and must develop alternative energy sources, as well as conserve more energy. Scientists continue to debate just how much oil is left and when supplies will finally be exhausted or become economically unfeasible to obtain. But it really is a question of "when" not "if".

On that point I suspect there can hardly be a doubt. Whether it will happen in our lifetime or the next, it will happen. So pursuing the advance of alternative energy sources today is a clearly good idea.

Like, as Mentzinger suggests, wind energy.

Clean, renewable wind.

But, if we are to do so in Maine, wind energy will come at a hefty cost: Huge wind generating towers, some thirty of them, atop the now relatively wild Redington range of mountains near Sugarloaf and the Appalachian Trail. The visual impact will be enormous. Never mind the power lines and access roads that will accompany the project.

Can we abide by such a cost? Can we make peace with ourselves with such an environmental swap, the wild and rugged mountain tops for some kilowatts of clean energy?

I wonder.

You?

I've just returned from a trip to the Mojave Desert in southern California. Just outside of Palm Springs, where I flew in and out of, is the world's largest wind farm, the Mojave Desert Wind Project.

Spanning the head of the Coachella Valley from Banning Pass to Palm Springs and from Whitewater Creek to the base of Mt. San Jacinto, are hundreds (maybe more) of wind towers. It's quite an amazing sight, really. Almost alien. At first I thought it was ugly. But it grew on me. As did the logic of it.

In this part of the desert, situated as it is between two high mountain ranges, the winds blow hard nearly all the time. Why not take advantage of it and harness this natural power? And so California did. Today, wind produces an estimated 30% of the state's power. Impressive.

But the woods and mountains of Maine are not the deserts of California. Can we do the same here? Will we do it? Do we want to do it?

Hard tellin'.

As an outdoor lover, do you feel the squeeze on this issue? What do you think of the prospects and viability of wind energy production in Maine?

Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when hiking the trails on Bigelow, or the Crockers, or Saddleback, we may very well crest the treeline and be greeted with huge wind turbines on the ridgeline before us.

I just don't know how I'm going to feel about that. But I'd better figure it out. Soon. You too. Because this thing appears to be moving forward.

This is a tough one.

You, me, all of us know damn well we need new sources of energy. Clean ones. Efficient ones.

Wind energy fits that bill.

But it comes with some not-so-nice side effects; a hefty price tag of sorts.

Like s series of 200-foot towers on the peaks of our western mountains. And that's something awfully hard to ignore. Impossible actually. No matter which way you turn. No beauty strip of trees will be able to hide this 800-pound gorilla.

By night, of course, these towers will be lit up. Just like any telecom tower. Visible for many miles around.

Can you imagine?

I'm trying. But it ain't working so well.

That's the emotional side of me.

The practical side says, "Hey, we need power. This is clean. And plentiful. It'll be OK."

I know, I know.

We do, after all, hike peaks with telecom towers and ski lifts and various and sundry other man-made developments on them. Do we get all wigged out over that?

No, not really, I guess.

We live in the eastern US. Such development is part of the landscape in this crowded corner of the country. We ignore it as best we can.

Are we gonna be NIMBYs about this. No way. We need to do better than that.

But how?

If only this was something a little less obtrusive. If the visual impact wasn't so enormous. If it just wasn't the Redington Range or Black Nubble that we had to make the choice over.

But it is. And we may well have to live with it.

If, if. Big, big maybes.

What to do?

First we had the Plum Creek development project to the south and west of Mount Katahdin to deal with. That pot is only now beginning to boil. Stay tuned.

As if that weren't enough to squabble over, there is now, to the east of the majestic mountain, another proposal for a development project, similar in nature (pardon the pun), but on a much smaller scale.

Matt Poulstein has proposed an adventure resort with a lodge and some 58 cabins smack in the shadow of Katahdin. Well-heeled guests will recreate by day in the surrounding "wilderness", and dine and sleep in unheard-of comfort in the evening.

The horror!

Poulstein is a pretty good guy from all accounts. For years he's been associated with the recreation industry in the Katahdin and Kennebec regions through his successful rafting and lodging business, the New England Outdoor Center. He's as savvy a businessman as there is. And he cares about the environment in which he does business.

And I believe him when he says he plans to operate in a sustainable way in an effort to meld with the natural surroundings and preserve traditional uses.

I'm very curious, however, to see what kind of reaction Poulstein's develoment proposal will generate.

Will the enviros loudly cry foul, as they have with the big, bad multinational giant Plum Creek over their Moosehead plan?

Or will they quietly give the nod to a local grassroots guy and allow his development plans to proceed unhindered, without fanfare and ecoterrorism threats?

Poulstein may well succeed. If anybody can pull this off and do it right, it's probably him. And he'll no doubt make it into a good thing for the region.

But I'm still curious...

Does scale make a difference, i.e. Plum Creek vs. Poulstein? What if ten other entrepreneurs wanted to do the same thing? What then? Or is it the robber baron image of Plum Creek that sets people off in foam-mouthed frenzy?

At least that's what a popular bumper sticker, part of a very successful long term Virginia tourism campaign, says.

I can't personally vouch for this as fact, but Virginia tourism officials sure seem to think the slogan has merit. The 35 year old campaign centered around it has boosted the state's tourism revenues from less than a $1 million to almost $12 million annually.

Can't argue with that.

But Virginia, apparently, is also for land buyers. Of the good kind. And that's very good news for us here in Maine.

The Conservation Fund, an Arlington, Virginia based conservation group has rather quietly purchased 7,700 acres in our own Washington County. The deal will help protect the headwaters of the beautiful Machias River and some 47 miles of pristine shoreline on the Machias Lakes and 13 miles of river frontage.

That's a lot of prime paddling, fishing and wildlife territory. Gotta love it.

Thanks to Virginia and the Conservation Fund!

So what do you think: "Maine is for lovers"?

Lovers of the great outdoors, that's for sure. Lots of us.

Beyond that, well, you'll have to figure that out for yourself...

I'm glad to see people finally calling the recent spate of vandalism that's gone on against Plum Creek what it really is: eco-terrorism.

And I'm equally glad to see that a member of the Maine Legislature, Senator John Nutting, a Democrat from Leeds, is crafting a bill to punish future eco-terrorist acts with jail time. Incredibly, such acts right now are merely misdemeanors and carry only fines. Nutting's bill would make eco-terrorism a felony.

Good. Damn good.

But will it pass? Hard telling apparently.

The bill is sure to face strong opposition again, however. Some opponents argued four years ago that such a law could threaten the right to free speech on environmental issues, even when there is no attempt to frighten people or damage property. Others said it would have no impact on the most radical environmentalists, and might even encourage more vandalism.

I hope it makes it through.

Note to the Plum Creek eco-terrorists (you know who you are): Try engaging IN the process, rather than cowardly working outside of it and hurting people and property. You'd be surprised at what could be accomplished by adopting such a civilized approach.

It appears that Question 5, the land and water conservation bond issue, is passing handily by 66% to 34%.

Passage means somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 million bucks (plus $7 million in matching private and public contributions) for a variety of recreation, forest, water, farmland and wildlife habitat protection projects across the state.

It's a good thing that will benefit all users of the great Maine outdoors.

It's time to vote tomorrow. I will be. You too, I hope.

And while you're in the booth, take a good look at Ballot Question #5, the Land for Maine's Future bond issue:

"Do you favor a $12,000,000 bond issue to purchase land and conservation easements statewide from willing sellers for conservation, water access, wildlife and fish habitat, outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, farmland preservation and working waterfront preservation to be matched by at least $7,000,000 in private and public contributions."

It's an opportunity that, in my opinion, shouldn't be missed.

You decide.

It's been in the news all week, the attacks on Plum Creek property and now the homes of employees families.

The extreme opposition has gone over the top now, in my opinion. And good people on both sides of the issue are making that point be known.

The vandals "don't have a seat at the table, and they're not getting one," said Jim Lehner, a Plum Creek manager whose private home was targeted.

Damn straight.

We don't address our disagreements in Maine this way.

What are your thoughts on this recent spate of ecoterrorism?

The acts of ecoterrorism committed in Maine earlier this week have enraged people on both sides of the Plum Creek-Moosehead debate.

Good.

This is an emotional issue. Passionate people have strong opinions on how this thing should ultimately play out. Many of us agree to disagree.

Nobody will get everything they want. Compromise on both sides will be necessary.

Right now, however, I'm glad we can all agree that this kind of criminal behavior has no place in the debate.

In fact, environmental groups acknowledge that, as far as public opinion goes, this most recent spate of vandalism may have hurt their opposition considerably, or possibly killed it altogether.

Said Jym St. Pierre of RESTORE: The North Woods, "This vandalism has set us back at least a year. They may have lost the game for us."

He might be right.

Regardless of their feelings on Plum Creek, I suspect most Maine people have little tolerance for petty criminals like these.

I know I do.

Vandalism? Sure. You can call it that.

But why continue pussyfooting around? Call it what it really is.

Ecoterrorism.

"The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."
James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI; , Feb. 12, 2002.

And it's here. In Maine. Now.

Cretins of the lowest common denominator have decided that the only way to fight the Plum Creek project is to commit cowardly acts of ecoterrorism. Acts of violence against not only company property, but now against the families of Plum Creek employees.

Read about it for yourself.

And feel free to throw up in disgust.

Paint, feces and animal guts were used to target employee homes in Oakland and Greenville.

Mere Halloween pranks?

Not a chance.

A coordinated effort by hoodlums in the night?

I think so.

My blood is at the boiling point. Maybe yours is too.

We have ways of working out our differences in this country that don't include such despicable acts.

For the grossly uninformed paint-sprayers and feces-throwers, they're called public hearings, letters to the editor, e-mails and phone calls to state representatives, peaceful demonstrations, the LURC review process, town meetings, the voting booth.

You want to disagree with the Plum Creek goings on? Fine. Seems about a 50-50 split amongst thoughtful people around the State of Maine on this one, so there's plenty of pros and cons out there. I find that healthy.

But there's lots more to be learned. A long way to go in the process. A great many changes to the plan. Some that we'll like, some we won't.

But reasonable people don't commit criminal acts like this. You're not doing your cause any favor folks. Of course, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you can even read this. After all, I'm not writing it in spray paint.

For the decent, sane majority, I wonder: Can we agree on some kind of reasonable development in the Moosehead region that meets the needs of the local people and our visitors, that invigorates the local economy while preserving the wild and beautiful character of the area that is so precious, so vitally important to us all?

Can we do this thing right?

Is it only one way or the other?

Can we please stop the hysteria on both sides of the issue?

Can we cease with the violence?

Ecology is all about balance. We must have remote, wild and scenic places. People need to have jobs and places to live. The pressures on our resources continue to mount. The population continues to grow and move about.

Tough stuff to deal with. But thoughtful, forward-thinking people working together can, and will, find the right path through these problems. To achieve a reasonable balance. I am certain of it. We call it hope.

And I hope that we have seen the last of the paint and the feces, of the wrong-doers who don't want to be part of the civilized process.

There is a better way. And we know that way.

The Plum Creek development stands to make some big changes in Maine's north woods, one way or the other.

It's big news, and big in the news right now.

Whatever you like to do in the outdoors, this project should concern you.

Read up on it so you know the facts. There's a lot to it.

Get some background on just who the Plum Creek Timber Company is.

Get an idea of what the Plum Creek development might look like by taking a look at a western resort.

Gain some insight into the financial pressures facing landowners big and small.

And find out what's already happening between long time camp owners and new owners on First Roach Pond.

And then voice your opinion on the Plum Creek project. Others have, pro and con. What do you think?

There's a lot going on in our north woods these days, much of which you never hear about.

For example: Did you know that there were "area sportsmen and residents who could not access snowmobile trails, a sportsmen´s hunting camp, or bring wood off their own properties," until a land swap deal was reached recently between a local logger and preservationist Roxanne Quimby of Burt's Bees fame?

I didn't.

The deal swaps a 14,000 acre parcel for another 10,000 acre parcel that Quimby had her eye on for preservation as she works to buy up land around Baxter State Park in hopes of a future national park coming to the region.

The deal again allows local people access to their own lands for traditional uses.

Thank goodness.

You know, I'm all for conservation, and there's a great deal of it going on in Maine's north woods. And the beautiful thing about most of the conservation deals that have been made lately is that they not only protect the land but they continue to allow access for traditional uses.

Believe it or not, good forestry can co-exist with trails; snowmobilers can co-exist with skiers; and so on. Not everywhere in every place certainly, but you get the idea.

I applaud Quimby's efforts to protect land from development, but I just can't abide with locking up large tracts of land and denying access to traditional uses and users.

Clearly, if you have the money--and Quimby does--you can do it. And she has as much right as any private landowner to do with her land as she wishes, within the bounds of the law.

But we have a long and proud history of mixed use of Maine's vast forestlands, and I sure hope the predominance of that line of thinking continues.

Incredibly, over the years, I've heard many people grumble about having to pay to access the North Maine Woods, to use the roads and stay at campsites.

We don't know how good we have it.

You want access problems, even more restricted use, and higher fees?

You'll get them with a national park.

This is a toughy.

The possibility of generating clean power from a renewable source: the wind vs. the environmental damage that will be caused by the construction and presence of wind generators on wilderness mountaintops.

We need more energy, especially from renewable sources.

But can we abide by the concurrent damage to our remote and precious landscape?

I'm certainly torn.

I was just out in the Mojave Desert of southern California a few weeks ago and saw first hand what may be the largest wind farm in the country. Hundreds of tall generating towers with their rotating turbines.

The scale of it was amazing. And it was ugly at first. But then it grew on me and seemed acceptable. But that was in the desert, where its difficult to hide ugliness to begin with, not the boreal forests of northwestern Maine.

So, if we say "no" to this idea, are we being NIMBYs?

Would it be better if it was built in New Hampshire instead?

Do you really want to travel up north and paddle a river, or hike a trail, and be confronted head-on with a huge wind tower, or many towers, dominating the skyline for miles around?

Isn't this a good way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, something we've squawked about for decades?

Could the visual impact be minimized by locating the towers in a compact area, therefore making the project more palatable?

Shouldn't we just cut back on our energy use so that we don't need to ruin our environment with wind towers?

I'm sorry. I have only questions at this point.

Poking around in North Conway NH recently netted me all kinds of bonuses. A great hike, some new gear, good beer, and a flyer on an outdoor center I'd never heard of.

The Tin Mountain Conservation Center puts on wide variety of interesting and informative programs, events and workshops throughout the year.

But damn if I'd ever heard of it. But now that I know...

Coming up this weekend, for example, is an Owl Prowl and a hike up Table Mountain. Down the road a bit they'll be clearing a trail on the old Boston & Maine RR, talking about climate change, holding a short course on winter bird ecology.

It's all great stuff. And a chance to get outside in the woods and hills along the Maine-NH border where they are located. And meet some new outdoor friends to boot.

By the way, the Tin Mountain Conservation Center is partially supported by our own LL Bean. Thanks LL! You can help too by becoming a member for a cool $35, although all TMCC activities are open to the public.

For nearly a hundred years, the Portland Water District has controlled public access to a large area of land and shoreline at the southwest corner of the lake in an effort protect water quality.

But late last year, the PWD loosened up their land use policies and has now granted public access to more than 1,000 acres for recreational uses such as hiking, biking and hunting.

This is great news!

The area is being patrolled by a PWD security officer and, as I understand it, permits to use the property must be signed at information kiosks at entrance points to the land. Maps are also provided at these locations.

This corner of the lake has an incredibly beautiful shoreline and nice woods that we can all enjoy now, although there still remain some restricted areas.

I can surely understand the PWDs concerns about water quality and pollution threats and abuse of the property that have prevailed through the years.

But I firmly believe that granting public accesss will translate to more use by good people with an eye towards stewardship. Simply put, it's more eyes and ears and bodies around that will help reduce abuse and will help to enhance the security patrols by PWD personnel.

It's a win-win. And I can't wait to get out there for a nice walk.

Excuse me for being the bearer of bad news folks, but Maine's North Woods is not wilderness.

Wild? Yes.

Woods? Yes.

But it is not, as Brownie Carson of the Natural Resource Council of Maine described it, a "vast forested wilderness."

It just isn't. The vast majority of it is working forest.

But the anti-development advocates continue to perpetuate the myth.

All development bad. Wilderness good.

No in-between. No balance.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Development is coming. To Maine and elsewhere.

Millions of baby boomers are on the verge of retirement. And having worked all their lives they have money. And they are searching for places to retire and invest.

Maine is one of those places.

So, would you rather have unplanned, willy-nilly development up north? Or would you prefer that development be planned to some degree, orderly like? Like the Plum Creek plan.

Is it a big project? Sure.

Will it destroy forever the wilderness character of the north woods? I don't think so.

Geography alone will naturally limit development in and around Moosehead. This isn't the coast. This isn't a few hours from Boston. Or even anywhere near a major airport. Access to the area takes time and effort. It always will.

I wish the Brownie Carsons and Jonathan Carters of the state would fess up and come clean about what they really want: No development at all. To hell with what the local people want. To hell with giving a boost to the local economy.

Carson wants Plum Creek to go back and re-tool their plan.

Why bother?

What could Plum Creek possibly do to change your mind? Little I believe.

Maine's north woods is a big place. A special place. A beautiful place.

Nobody wants to see it paved over.

We all want to be able to camp and hike and fish and snowmobile there. We want the local folks to thrive and enjoy a quality of life that is better than what they have now. We want the timber industry and our vast forestlands--a huge wealth of renewable resources--to survive and prosper.

It can't be one way OR the other. A plan for conservation. A plan for development. A balanced approach that benefits many. That's what's needed.

Noted University of Southern Maine economist Charles Colgan has just completed an analysis of the proposed Plum Creek development project in the Moosehead Lake region.

You know the details pretty well by now: 1,500 housing lots, several resorts, campgrounds, yada yada... on 2% of Plum Creek's land holdings of some 450,000 acres. 98% of their lands will remain undeveloped and in timber production for at least 30 years. Hiking trails and snowmobile trails will be constructed and the land will remain available for recreational use by the public.

Colgan's conclusion: A positive economic impact on the region.

The be all and end all word on the deal?

No.

A fair assessment by Colgan, a well-respected and highly experienced Maine economist?

I think so.

As expected, the RESTORE folks say that the economic benefits of the project as outlined in the analysis are "purely speculative" because they are merely paper descriptions of what might be.

Uh, hello.

Aren't the economic benefits of your proposed national park up there that you've been touting rather speculative also? Isn't that just a paper plan too?

You guys crack me up.

Give me a break.

By the way, the public (that's us) has four opportunities coming up to give input into the project to the LURC folks, the people that will ultimately give the thumbs up or down on the Plum Creek proposal:

8/16/05 Greenville
8/18/05 Rockwood
8/22/05 Jackman area
8/24/05 Augusta area

Get all the details from LURC.

And don't pass up your chance to put your two cents in.

This can't be happening.

First the Plum Creek thing near Greenville.

And now some other out-of-state yucksters want to d... de... dev... d-e-v-e-l-o-p a resort on the other side of the mountains on a 3,500-acre parcel of land fronting on Norton Pond in Brownville.

Jon, you gotta do something!

The news has been out for a couple of hours now and I haven't heard boo from you.

What gives?

This is more big stuff. It's development. In the wilderness of Brownville no less. It must be stopped! By every "political, legal and legislative" means, right Jon?

Get on it Jon. We're counting on you.

LURC, Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, will be holding a series of four "scoping sessions" in the next few weeks on the proposed Plum Creek land development project.

These are public input sessions and might just be a fine opportunity for those folks who have demonstrated their opposition to the project in some rather unsavory ways recently, i.e. trashing the offices of Plum Creek in Greenville and Fairfield.

Tisk, tisk.

How about if you all put away your ski masks and crowbars and spray paint, get cleaned up, and participate in the public process, nice like?

It would add so much credence to your cause.

Plenty of Maine people oppose the Plum Creek plan for some very good reasons. Those in favor have some good things to say too. I've got quite a list of questions myself.

But breaking windows and stealing stuff isn't the way to win anybody's favor.

The public process works. In the end nobody gets everything they wanted. But at least all sides have had their say. That's just the way it works in a free society.

Hope you'll chime in.

Despicable.

I'm sorry to say, but I figured this would happen soon enough.

The offices of Plum Creek Timber in Greenville were vandalized yesterday.
Computers were stolen and files rifled through.

Nice job folks. Very impressive.

It's a fine way to get your message across. It's working together allright. And it sure buys you big points with the local people.

Morons.

You want to oppose the Plum Creek project? Fine. Take a seat at the table and do so in a civilized manner.

But cretins like you don't get that concept.

As of 4:30 PM yesterday afternoon, 41 readers had commented on the article on the heated environmental battle against the proposed Plum Creek project up at Moosehead.

I counted 21 pro, 18 against, and 2 not sure.

Pretty evenly split.

And some damn good comments. I certainly learned a thing or two.

Hope you had a chance to read through them and add your voice, pro or con. Everyone's opinion matters.

Plum Creek. Moosehead Lake. Development. Wilderness. Conservation. Jobs. Money.

All are part of the battle that is shaping up in Maine's North Woods, with Greenville at the epicenter.

And yesterday, environmental groups turned up the heat on the issue a few notches by vowing to block the plan using a variety of means.

Check out the great reader comments, both for and against the Plum Creek plan, and please, please add yours.

By the way, there's an excellent map on page A12 of today's Portland Press Herald that provides some visual perspective on the project.

I just love a good case of hysteria.

Especially when it involves Jonathan Carter, who is now out of mothballs and shaking his finger at Plum Creek, citing doom and gloom for the environment, for mankind, for Mother Earth herself, should their Moosehead Lake development plan get the nod from LURC.

Yep, the sky is falling. Again.

Thank goodness Carter and his ilk are here to warn us. And possibly press upon us another silly and costly statewide referendum.

Zzzzzzz.

Hey Jon, you interested in a nice woodsy camp lot? They're gonna go fast up there you know...

The Maine Woods National Park proposal.

It's been kicking around for awhile and isn't likely to go away any time soon.

The folks at RESTORE are pushing hard for the idea. Another group, the Maine Woods Coalition, isn't too hot on it at all.

I say "no" (still).

Dave says "yes".

Now, there's many thousands of us out there that care dearly about the Maine Woods. We hike there, camp there, boat there, hunt and fish there. We love it!

But we differ on what should be done to protect its future.

I know we're on the verge of the long holiday weekend and you're itching to get going and all, but...

I'd like really to know... what do YOU think? Pro, con, undecided, whatever. Do you want to see a national park in Maine's North Woods or not? And why?

Take a moment and let me know. Maybe I could learn a thing or two.

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?

How nice.

The offices of Plum Creek Timber Company in Fairfield were vandalized yesterday. I'm not sure of the extent of the damage done, but the company's sign was torn down and "Leave Our Land" and "Maine Is Not For Sale" was spray painted on the building.

Plum Creek, you'll recall, is planning to develop a portion of the 400,000+ acres it owns in and around Moosehead Lake. But the vast majority of their lands will remain as commercial forestland and open to traditional recreational uses, such as hiking and camping and snowmobiling.

I have an extremely low tolerance for vandals. And this kind of thing just puts me over the edge.

Clearly these cretins don't understand the rather simple concept of private property. And they have demonstrated their ignorance and lack of respect by wantonly destroying the property of others.

I look at it a little more seriously than mere vandalism, however. This is an act of eco-terrorism and there's just no supporting such acts in this day and age. And this type of action continues to give the legitimate environmental movement, which has accomplished a lot by legal and peaceful means over the years, a big black eye.

Note to you destructive morons: If you have something to say about this development project, then go through the proper channels. After all, that's what Plum Creek is doing with LURC. But I wouldn't expect you to get this concept either.

And I've got a few catchy slogans for you: "Vandals Leave Our Land and Property Alone" and "Maine is Not for Vandals."

Hike around in the woods of Maine this time of year and you'll likely see plenty of wet spots and small pools of water on the forest floor. A month or so from now these wet spots will be mostly dried up and gone. And you'll think nothing more of it, beyond that your boots and socks will be a lot drier as you walk along.

But these wet areas, called vernal pools, are critically important to many wildlife species, big and small. They are to the land what estuaries are to the coast: incredible breeding and feeding grounds for all sorts of wildlife. From frogs and salamanders to deer and moose. The little guys come to these pools to lay their eggs, while the big guys come to feed there. So there's a lot going on in and around these vernal pools that you might never notice. It's really a beautiful thing in Mother Nature's grand scheme of the cycle of life.

Over time, however, development has wiped out many areas of vernal pools. But now the state is taking measures to try to protect them, as the Gov is set to sign a bill pretty soon. It's going to add another layer of regulation for landowners and developers to deal with, but hopefully it'll be a good compromise between protecting these important areas of wildlife habitat and allowing needed development. It's always a delicate balancing act for sure.

So the next time you're out hiking, take a closer look around at the vernal pools and see what's happening. If you look carefully you may be pleasantly surprised at all the activity you'll find. Amazing, isn't it?

It's a real nice thing to see local students getting together with the folks from the Cathance River Education Alliance this weekend to plant chestnut trees at the Cathance River Nature Preserve.

The American Chestnut, a stately shade tree by all measures, was pretty much wiped out over the course of the last century by a fungal blight, and you won't find a chestnut tree around today that amounts to anything more than a shrub.

I remember seeing huge chestnut trees (we're talking many, many feet around in girth) in the park near where I lived in N.J. as a youngster. And when the trees would shed their load of chestnuts, walking through the park was like trying to walk on huge ball bearings. Of course we kids also found the chestnuts very useful for throwing at passing cars, but that's another story.

This is nice effort, and I hope we can start to reverse the decline of the chestnut little by little. Kudos folks.

By the way, if you're looking for something to do on National Trails Day on June 4th, check out the guided hikes and trail maintenance that'll be going on at the Cathance River Nature Preserve that day.

In case you've forgotten, today in the 35th anniversary of Earth Day! But you probably won't hear much about it in the news. In fact, some even feel that Earth Day and the environmental movement has fallen off the radar screen of most Americans.

Don't despair.

There have been tremendous accomplishments made in cleaning up our environment since Earth Day began in 1970. That's a tribute to the dedication and hard work of thousands, if not millions, of environmentally concious individuals, in many big and small ways. Our air is cleaner, our waters are cleaner, we recycle more. But there remain many significant challenges, and so the job of safe-guarding our environment is never done.

We all desire a clean, safe, healthy environment. How we achieve those ends is often a source of disagreement, but it is clear that over the last 35 years we as a people have in fact come together to solve many very difficult environmental problems, both at home here in the U.S. and abroad.

That spirit of debate and cooperation can and should continue in the best interests of all as we address the problems of the new century such as urban sprawl, diminishing water and energy resources, agricultural contamination, food shortages, overpopulation, global warming and many others. Serious problems that require serious solutions.

That's what today--Earth Day--is all about. We celebrate what has been accomplished. We talk together and identify what needs to be done next. Then we find common ground for moving forward with real solutions. It has worked in the past and will continue to work in the future! I firmly believe in our ability to solve problems together where we must. I have hope for a better future. You should too.

So today, be happy and celebrate the good, green Earth and all that we have.

By the way, if you're looking for someplace to celebrate Earth Day today, there is a fun event in downtown Portland sponsored by the folks at MENSK worth checking out.

What are your plans for celebrating Earth Day?

Every day is a surprise, isn't it? Today is no different.

Say what you will about Wal-Mart, the company that everybody loves to hate (except when they flock there by the thousands to buy cheap Chinese-manufactured goods).

Wal-Mart has just announced a $35 million campaign called Acres for America "to help conserve an acre of wildlife habitat for every acre it has developed, and will develop, over the next decade. Maine will receive the lion's share of the initial effort - $6 million of the $8 million."

Hey folks, that ain't no chump change.

Apparently the first order of business in Maine will be "to conserve 312,000 acres of forestland in northern Washington County through an easement."

This is huge. And apparently it's only the beginning.

So the mega-retailer that has helped contribute demonstrably to urban and suburban sprawl is now looking to make a genuine difference in land conservation, and Maine will likely benefit considerably.

How 'bout that?

Kudos to Wal-Mart. It looks good on paper. But let's keep an eye on the dancing Happy Face on this one and see that they follow through.

Plum Creek Timber's proposed development plan on 426,000 acres in and around Moosehead Lake has an awful lot of parts to it, and is hard to grasp all at once. Never mind the fact that the document itself is a whopping 570 pages long and will require many long hours of bathroom reading to fully digest. Not that I'm going to try you understand.

Instead, I'll just offer up my annotated Cliff Notes version:

* 89% percent of the acreage will be designated as working forestland, meaning traditional wood harvesting operations will continue. This is good. It's been a working forest for generations. We need the wood products and we need the jobs.

* 80 acres will be set aside for sporting camps. I figure this is for development of new camps. Why not? This looks to be in line with the Governor's recent eco-tourism plan.

* 600 acres will be set aside for commercial campgrounds. Ditto above.

* A tourist center on 500 acres will be developed at Brassua Lake. A central location for visitors of all stripes to stop and get information on the area. Sounds good to me.

* A "high-end" resort will be built on 3,000 acres at Lily Bay. OK. If tastefully done this could work out allright. Again, it fits with the eco-tourism thing. Eco-tourists tend to have money, so why not do something to attract them and have them spend their cabbage here too.

* Almost 11,000 acres of precious shorefront land will be permanently set aside under conservation easement. Very, very good!

* 71 miles of snowmobile trails and 55 miles of hiking trails will be either preserved or developed. I can't really tell which at this point. But you know me, I just love trails of all kinds. I like this one.

* 575 shorefront homes and 400 back lot homes will be developed. Face it. The people are coming. A well-planned development could make order out of chaos and provide some measure of control.

Whew! That's a lot of stuff going on. It certainly makes for plenty to talk about. Overall it looks like a pretty well balanced plan of development, conservation, recreation and traditional land uses. And it's one that I could support. But there's no doubt, the debate will rage on this one for awhile before it all gets sorted out and a final plan approved.

What do you think?

The proposed Plum Creek Timber Co. multi-faceted plan on 465,000 acres of land in and around Moosehead Lake looks like a good one to me. It combines a modest amount of development with conservation easements that allow for continued management and harvesting of the vast timberlands, while providing for additional recreational opportunities for us outdoorsy types. Of particular note are the plans for 43 miles of new hiking trails (and some 75 miles of snowmobile trails for you motorized enthusiasts) in the region. I like that idea a lot. Some of the land will be sold to the state for permanent preservation of a number of precious bogs and ponds in the area.

It's a balanced approach to conservation and I applaud it. I like it a whole lot more than Restore: The North Woods' idea of locking up our forestlands and making a National Park out of them. Sounds romantic, but I prefer the multi-use approach to our forests: A healthy mix of forest products industry jobs; a well-managed, productive forest; a broad range of recreational opportunities; preservation of important historical, cultural, and ecological areas; and continued public access (a longtime Maine tradition).

Note to Restore: The vast majority of Maine's millions of acres of forestland are not wilderness. That sounds nice and gets people (especially out-of-staters) excited to sign petitions to force a federal land grab of of our private woodlands. But the truth is that most of Maine's northern forestland is a "working forest" (read: commercial forest) and has been for hundreds of years. I'm a little rusty on my forestry, but I believe we're in our 5th or 6th cutting rotation by now. It's wooded and remote and beautiful, but it's not wilderness. Some of it, yes, but not the majority.

We get the best of all worlds by this private-public approach to conservation, in my view. Baxter State Park, the Allagash, the Appalachian Trail corridor, a host of Maine Bureau of Public Lands parcels. And with more deals like the Plum Creek plan, and recent Nature Conservancy purchases, more recreational lands continue to available to us. Further, we get commerical timber and the jobs that go with it, and the ripple effect that follows, so that people can actually afford to continue living in these beautiful places. And we get incredible access to lakes, mountains, rivers and streams; and practically unlimited opportunities for camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, you-name-it. All good. Try getting all that with a National Park. Ain't no way! We're pretty lucky.