BSP Director Bissell has sent a letter to the Katahdin W&W NM Manager.

[TJ aka Teej]

Baxter State Park Director Jensen Bissell has sent a letter to the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Manager, welcoming them, offering cooperation, and expressing concerns.

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/pdf/KWWNM.pdf

[tflaris]

Thanks for posting


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TJ aka Teej]

Map from the letter:
Screenshot_24.png

[egilbe]

I would hate for the National monument area to be developed too much, but I can't imagine it would be. ATV and snowmobile trails, a camp ground or two, campground stores, hiking trails, hunting and fishing areas. Sounds interesting.

[Rain Man]

Ate breakfast in Stratton week before last. Overheard locals at next table jabbering about "granola-eating hikers" taking over the new national "park" (in a bad way, that is).

Of course, I've yet to hear a local chamber of commerce business person whine about the tourist dollars a national park pumps into a local economy ... without destroying the environment.

[Last Call]

Sounds like Bissell needs to tend to his own rat-killing. What good is a park if the public cannot use it ??? Those old head do-gooders at Baxter exercise far too much power....let the people speak as to how to utilize the park! They need at LEAST several more campgrounds and more road network at Baxter and surrounding areas.

[egilbe]

Sounds like Bissell needs to tend to his own rat-killing. What good is a park if the public cannot use it ??? Those old head do-gooders at Baxter exercise far too much power....let the people speak as to how to utilize the park! They need at LEAST several more campgrounds and more road network at Baxter and surrounding areas.

No they don't. The resources are limited and so is the ability to enter the park. Cant be kept forever wild if there are electric lights polluting the night sky and pavement giving entry to every idiot on a motorcycle.

[eabyrd1506]

Sounds like Bissell needs to tend to his own rat-killing. What good is a park if the public cannot use it ??? Those old head do-gooders at Baxter exercise far too much power....let the people speak as to how to utilize the park! They need at LEAST several more campgrounds and more road network at Baxter and surrounding areas.

If there were specific provisions to the gift they need to be honored

[ki0eh]

I'm surprised he didn't offer them the terminus of the A.T.

[Heliotrope]

No they don't. The resources are limited and so is the ability to enter the park. Cant be kept forever wild if there are electric lights polluting the night sky and pavement giving entry to every idiot on a motorcycle.

Agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peakbagger]

The trail less areas established by BSP in 2012 effectively shuts out much of any future KWW connection to BSPs trail network. There had been a BSP proposal to extend the spur trail from Twin Ponds west between N&S Turner to connect up with the Russell Pond trail, it looks like that's off the table. The original IAT route proposed using the Northern Peaks trail and the Grand Falls Trail to connect up with the old Wassataquoik tote road and then out of BSP. KWW has a side trail to a lookout very close to the park boundary within a mile (but very steep) from the former tote road location. This is also off the table with the trail less designation.

BSP did a lot of development of the Trout Brook campground and outlying sites along with a trail network in the seventies that I expect will get some boost in use from the monument. This area was developed to try to pull use from the southern part of BSP without a lot of success and usually has vacancies most of the summer and fall season. There are quite few nice open summits in the area including the very notable Traveler Loop which are mostly within the park boundary so those who have already made the commitment of the extra 2 hour drive to the East branch country will most likely use the BSP facilities due to the access to the summits. At a minimum day use and the associated gate fee will provide revenue to BSP.

One thing with BSP is unlike a typical national park administered site, there are little or no views from any of the park roads. Scenic view points are limited to natural openings and for a vast majority of drive through the park a driver is just looking at dusty tree trunks and a dense canopy.

[Starchild]

I would like to see a independent audit of the management Baxter in light of Governors Baxtor's stated purpose and intention. I feel it would help the current management keep things in perspective, which I do believe they have lost sight of, or if not, would be helpful in their current policies, keeping them on track and add some legitimization of their more questionable policies.

Some terms and thoughts that came up in the letter that caused some pause is they are 'managing the wilderness' - that really is not possible, once you manage it it is no longer wild by definition (you can manage public access, and man made structures, but this is not how they state it). They really need to define their role better in preserving the wilderness as the primary objective. They also get a significant portion of their revenue from sale of wood products from scientific use of certain areas - that sounds in lines with Japan's harvesting of whale meat for commercial sale under the guise of research. In this case it does sound like a revenue generating use of timber harvest as primary, with scientific study as a happy side effect and as a cover to make it sound better and to get around Baxter's mission statement and intention - after all it is suppose to be by mission statement wilderness. Not saying these are the case, however there seem to be things that do raise questions as to if they are really following Baxter's intentions.

What Baxter does state is the solitude and wilderness areas they wish to preserve of certain sections plus light pollution particularly seen from the summit area of Katahdin - though that last part seems somewhat miss as they don't allow night hiking up there, but no one wants extra light pollution, especially there destroying the beautiful night sky from the campgrounds, so something we can get behind, plus not seeing development from Katahdin. And also acknowledgment the necessity to work together with the neighbors, though some of their requests do seem a little heavy handed in very subtle ways, I don't know if they have such a pull on the National Monument management like they do with ATC and may have to dial that back some more.

[Offshore]

... though some of their requests do seem a little heavy handed in very subtle ways...

Couldn't agree more. My initial reaction on reading this was to wonder if anyone from KWWNM even asked Bissell for his input, particularly at a level of detail that seems odd for an initial welcome letter. This letter read like meeting minutes which makes me think its not-so-subtle posturing and was meant more for public consumption than for KWWNM's benefit. A second reading left me with the impression that this is like buying a house and having the neighbor come over and make unsolicited "suggestions" for what color to paint the house, what kind of landscaping to install, and whom to invite over.

[peakbagger]

I would like to see a independent audit of the management Baxter in light of Governors Baxtor's stated purpose and intention. I feel it would help the current management keep things in perspective, which I do believe they have lost sight of, or if not, would be helpful in their current policies, keeping them on track and add some legitimization of their more questionable policies.

Your posting implies that you really are not familiar with the management of the park, they operate under quite a "microscope" and there are several formal and informal groups that keep an independent eye on how they manage to Percival Baxter's intent. The Deeds of Trust are just the beginning, what has happened since his passing is that in areas where the deeds of trust are not clear or complete blank his entire lifetime of statements regarding his intent are now used to justify any not clear areas. If you have a really fast connection you can download Howards Whitcomb's compendium of Baxter's writings and conversations regarding the park here http://digitalmaine.com/baxter_docs/ (note there are four volumes). In past court cases where outside groups argued that the park was mismanaging the park against Baxter's wishes, the court falls back on his intent which is established by his writings and conversations both public and private. Unfortunately in some areas like the use of snowmobiles, Baxter's intent was unclear and compromises were made (Snowmachines are allowed on the perimeter road).

that sounds in lines with Japan's harvesting of whale meat for commercial sale under the guise of research. In this case it does sound like a revenue generating use of timber harvest as primary, with scientific study as a happy side effect and as a cover to make it sound better and to get around Baxter's mission statement and intention - after all it is suppose to be by mission statement wilderness. Not saying these are the case, however there seem to be things that do raise questions as to if they are really following Baxter's intentions

It is not the case, Baxter very specifically designated a specific part of the park as a Scientific Forest Management Area (SFMA) as model working forest to show industry what could be done.

I am not sure where the statement comes that the SFMA revenue is significant source of revenue. I looked up the 2014 annual report and the SFMA is 12% (174K) of the total annul revenue of $1,484K. This doesn't include the rather substantial income from the restricted endowments and other unrestricted trusts of $2,103K. If the SFMA revenue is divided by the total revenue its 4.5%. I expect they would miss it but 4.5% is not what I would call a significant source of revenue.

KWW has expressed that they are open to input from all parties regarding the future of the monument, I think its reasonable that the major next door neighbor has a right and responsibility to provide input. Given that BSP is a public entity, its proper that this input be made in public and that's what they did.

[FatMan]

Couldn't agree more. My initial reaction on reading this was to wonder if anyone from KWWNM even asked Bissell for his input, particularly at a level of detail that seems odd for an initial welcome letter. This letter read like meeting minutes which makes me think its not-so-subtle posturing and was meant more for public consumption than for KWWNM's benefit. A second reading left me with the impression that this is like buying a house and having the neighbor come over and make unsolicited "suggestions" for what color to paint the house, what kind of landscaping to install, and whom to invite over.

+1 My take as well.

[rafe]

Half the posts here suggests that posters just saw the name "Bissel" and so they figure there must be something to criticize, some ulterior motive, yadda yadda.

[Another Kevin]

Half the posts here suggests that posters just saw the name "Bissel" and so they figure there must be something to criticize, some ulterior motive, yadda yadda.

Not entirely fair, but understandable. Mr Bissell has made it abundantly clear that Appalachian Trail hikers are in his opinion, too numerous for Baxter State Park to accommodate. Moreover, he has stated explicitly that even if hiker behaviour were exemplary, which it emphatically is not, AT hikers would still be too numerous, and a way to address the sheer numbers must be found. That is a bitter pill for the people on an AT site to swallow. People therefore jump at the chance to discredit him, or failing that, to shoot the messenger. It's human nature.

Moreover, his letter has quite a confrontational tone; it appears to begin from the assumption that KWWNM will naturally and inevitably encroach upon the wilderness of Baxter State Park. I would suspect that the letter reflects the troubled relationship between BSP and the National Park Service in recent years; this is surely not the first interaction between them. To some extent, this reflects a fundamental conflict between their missions. A National Park (National Monument, National Recreation Area, etc.) exists in part to develop the wilderness for tourism, and at times that appears to be its primary mission. Governor Baxter's will, on the other hand, put protection before everything else.

In short, the subtext of the letter is, "The National Park Service has done entirely enough damage to BSP by the AT's being routed where it is. I am therefore not going to alter BSP's management policy one millimetre to accommodate any request on behalf of KWWNM, no matter how superficially reasonable it appears."

The most painful part is that he's quite possibly right on all counts. The newfound popularity of the AT has changed BSP, and not for the better. The presence of KWWNM right on BSP's borders will change it further. The National Park Service has quite a checkered history of seizing control of land management outside the borders of a park, forever changing the nature of inholdings and adjacent properties. The changes that it makes often infuriate the locals. Many years after the AT corridor began to be purchased and protected, you can still see locals maintaining signs like this one nearby.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that there's a tremendous amount of bad blood between the locals and the former landowner. Mrs Quimby's donation of the land to the NPS was very much seen as a slap in the face and an ultimate move to keep control permanently away from the people whose lives were the most intimately affected by the land in question.

I can only hope that through healthy discord, some sort of consensus, or at least compromise, will eventually emerge. I foresee that there will be a pitched battle among the various stakeholders before one does. Unfortunately, the Greatest Mountain stands in the crossfire.

[Teacher & Snacktime]

A second reading left me with the impression that this is like buying a house and having the neighbor come over and make unsolicited "suggestions" for what color to paint the house, what kind of landscaping to install, and whom to invite over.

My interpretation exactly, but though you might hate the presumption of the neighbor, you must admire the effort taken to make his position clear from the get-go. This letter is a warning more than a welcome....to maintain status quo.

[peakbagger]

A little more background on the letter http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/1...ment-neighbor/

The Bangor Daily News is the paper for the BSP region. They were initially on the fence but switched over to pro monument.

[Offshore]

A little more background on the letter http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/1...ment-neighbor/

The Bangor Daily News is the paper for the BSP region. They were initially on the fence but switched over to pro monument.

The comments are entertaining, so don't miss them when you read the article. I predict that some of the outraged commenters will tear themselves away from their keyboards and form a militia to defend the honor of Bissell and BSP from the great unwashed (e.g., non-locals). They'll have to set up their HQ in the KWWNM rather than BSP to avoid the whole unauthorized camping thing, of course.