Maine Northern Woods -- Non-Profits & Plum Creek Have Agenda's

Another in a not-so-regular series of posts highlighting nature's nature & 'ain't that odd'


As you may know, paper companies and wood harvesting companies have owned much of the northern Maine woods for 100's of years. In some ways, if it were not for their singular ownership of very large tracts of land, Maine would not necessarily have the wild woodlands we have today.

Now things are changing. Ownership is becoming fragmented and owners want to manage their land and obtain return on investments. It is their right according to our laws.

Plum Creek would like to develop their land in Rockwood and Greenville, Maine. But, the Sierra Club, Appalachian Mountain Club, Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Nature Conservancy, among several others, want a piece of the action without paying for the land or all the years of carrying costs. They simply want 100,000s of acres set aside, and according to easements of their own construction, in order for Plum Creek to proceed.

Non-profit and environmental do not automatically mean good for us nor motherhood and apple pie. Do not jump on a bandwagon just because of these two identifiers. There is only one basic difference between for profit and non-profit. That is the IRS designation. They are both corporations, have directors, shareholders (members), and have their own self serving agendas. They both re-invest their earnings, only one has shareholders and the other has members. Non-profits also have some of the best retirement, medical, and fringe benefits -- better than most commercial organizations of similar longevity and size. Look at the details of these and other compensation packages before jumping to a conclusion.

Why should any of these companies have a legal standing in trying to acquire the rights to land without paying any thing for it. If they feel the land is so valuable and worthy simply purchase it on the open market. Well, they can't because they do not have the support to do that in this case; so, they are positioning and imposing their value system through "give me the rights to your land" but I do not want to pay for it. Conversely, Plum Creek may not being forthright in their profit motivations either. Both sides need to come to the table and simply place the facts, not the hype, on the table. And, who is putting more hype out there than facts? Who is drawing dire, doomsday, the sky is falling hype? Who is offering to show all their documentation, agendas, and management plans? They both should.

Why would you think these non-profits would be good for you, represent you, and negotiate for what you may incorrectly think is on your behalf. They are not required to represent a greater good for all people and they do not. They only represent their own agendas and those of their relatively small members.

You should ask each of these organizations directly for a copy of their defined easement agreement. You would be surprised how each is pressing their own agenda, not your agenda.

And, based upon the logic of impacting an owners use of their land, shouldn't we be fair and open up each and all of the member's home property and limit how they use their own back yard if they want to continue living there, or before they sell their house.

Why should it work only one way! If you want land management rights, buy them, not operate under a cloud of non-profit to project your own member agendas on the public.

We wish it were that simple and we know it is not. But, Go Figure!