[at-l] Boston Globe =?UNKNOWN?Q?article=3A=A0?= Maine woods

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 02:13 PM 12/22/2003 -0500, Bob C. wrote:
> >"... the Globe poses the conservationists as bullies running over the
> >locals..."
>
>I thought the piece had an air of unreality about it -- both on the part 
>of the
>writer and in the quotes from the locals.
>
>  The facts are pretty obvious. The land is on the market and there are 
> only two
>  types of buyers -- conservationists and land speculators. The past is gone.
>  Never again, at least in our lifetimes, will the northern Maine woods be 
> owned
>  by giant corporations and managed exclusively for the growing of trees to
>  supply Maine mills.
>
>   I think the basic corporate decisions were made decade agos, when the
>   companies began harvesting the key paper-making species several times 
> faster
>   than they could grow, and began to use harvesting techniques that 
> removed the
>   fiber cheaply by slowed new growth. That told me the companies were 
> suddenly
>   in the mining business not the tree-growing business.
>
>   Nothing that has happened since has made me waiver in my belief that 
> most of
>  the companies will eventually leave Maine. I find it sad that those who 
> stand
>  to lose the most, are railing against the conservation buyers, who are in
>  reality their best friends.
>
>   Years of overcutting ensure a sharply reduced industry and fewer Maine 
> jobs.
>   But if any wood at all is likely to remain for use in the mills that 
> survive,
>   it is more likely to be harvested from AMC and The Nature Conservancy
>   holdings, than from land speculation holdings.
>
>   Nor have I much sympathy for those who lament the possible loss of 
> hunting and
>   fishing camp leases. These leases have almost all been issued on a year to
>   year basis, cancellable at any time by the paper companies. Hundreds 
> have been
>   terminated since the big sell off began a few years ago.
>
>   Again those most protected are those lucky enough to be located on lands
>   purchased by the State of Maine, the National Park Service or other
>   conservation groups.  All the park service leases I have seen have allowed
>   leaseholders years of continued occupancy before being required to 
> vacate the
>   lands. Maine simply allows the camps to stay indefinitely. Conservation 
> groups
>   for similar political reasons mostly do the same.

Similar things are happening in the Adirondacks. Pulp and/or paper can be 
bought cheaper overseas so paper companies are folding left and right [but 
it's not due to free trade mind you TFPIC] . A couple of years ago the 
State bought the "St. Regis Tract", a large piece of the timber holdings in 
the NW Adirondacks. It had been for sale for some time. Hunting clubs with 
leases were expecting a buyer that would simply renew their leases and 
howled bloody murder when the State bought the land and told them they had 
5 years to vacate. They campaigned unsuccessfully to get the State to lease 
them exclusive use to the land. It had an enlightening effect on some clubs 
that were on other leased tracks. At least one I know went out an set up a 
formal organization sold memberships and raised the money to buy the land 
themselves.

The Adirondacks have been mentioned as a possible National Park in the 
past. The support of locals for that is nil to none. I don't blame them. 
It's tough enough surviving economically up here as it is. The regulations 
that go with a National Park would make the Adirondack Park Agency [the 
State's land use review agency] look benevolent by comparison.