State of Maine's Environment 2005
Header image  
An Environmental Assessment  
     
   

Outdoor Recreation in Maine: Implications for land-use policy in the North Woods

Jennifer E. Venezia

 

Introduction

Wildlife-related recreation has social, political, and economic importance in Maine and in the rural communities surrounding Maine’s North Woods.1  Hunters and anglers in particular represent a large portion of the residents in northern and western Maine. The town of Greenville in the northern county of Piscataquis is ranked thirteenth in the state for having 38% of its population licensed as hunters.2  Sportsmen have historically exercised substantial political influence and continue to have economic importance throughout the state. Their political influence derives in part from the economic significance of hunting and fishing related fees and taxes. This revenue goes directly toward state-level wildlife management and land conservation. Outdoor recreation influences land-use policy, environmental conservation, wildlife management, and the economy on a state-level and on a local-level.

In 1998, 22% of Maine residents were licensed hunters, fishermen, or trappers.3 According to the most recent US Fish and Wildlife national survey, the proportion of sportsmen has increased to over a quarter of Maine’s population[1].4  A Maine Warden Service Report issued in 1999 describes the growing demand for outdoor recreation and the changing user-trends in Maine. For example, the use of snowmobiles and ATVs has increased the rate and extent of access into remote areas previously accessible only by foot, canoe, or aircraft.3  Such access poses new threats to landowner relations and creates more work for the Warden Service. The report found that wardens are spending larger amounts of time dealing with non-wildlife issues. They were being called increasingly to investigate or assist with motorized vehicle accidents and, as a result, have had less time to spend towards their primary duties such as fish and wildlife protection.

Maine’s North Woods are currently facing ownership changes, shifting recreational trends, and proposals for development. These changes will directly impact the future use of the area, the quality of available recreational opportunities, and the economic health of the surrounding communities.5  Recent proposals for commercial and residential re-zoning have implications specifically pertaining to the traditional recreational uses of the North Woods. The lands in question have historically been privately held but publicly enjoyed. The traditional uses of hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation such as birding, have relied on public access to privately owned timberlands in this region. The primary concern of the sporting community is the possible loss of this tradition of public access.6

In this paper I examine the importance of outdoor recreation in northern New England and its implications for the future of Maine’s North Woods. I begin with a demographic overview comparing Maine to New Hampshire and Vermont. I then describe the national trends in outdoor recreation and compare them to my selected states. Next, I discuss regional trends in outdoor recreation, the benefits to conservation and the economy, and the current problems facing those who participate in wildlife-related recreation. I conclude with a discussion of current initiatives and potential solutions for preserving the availability of recreational opportunities in the North Woods for both sportsmen and wildlife-watchers. The discussion addresses the issues of public access, land conservation, licensing systems, and partnerships for sustainable tourism.

 

Methods

In order to compare wildlife-related recreation trends in Maine to national trends and regional trends in northern New England, I have used statistics compiled by the federal government and state agencies pertaining to participation rates primarily between 1991 and 2001. I have compared recreation statistics in Maine to those of New Hampshire and Vermont because they have similar demographics, outdoor recreation trends, and tourism industries. I have used data from Piscataquis County, Maine for some examples because it is representative of rural Maine and North Woods’ communities.

The majority of data used to compare state license sales, land-use policies, and revenue generated by sportsmen comes from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, individual state fish and wildlife agencies, US census data, current state-level policy proposals, and professional opinions. The data has been used to determine state-level participation primarily in hunting and fishing and their specific economic impacts.

 

Context

In 2004, the estimated population of Maine was 1.3 million people. The state covers an area of 30,862 square miles and according to the 2000 census, has an average population density of 41.3 persons/mile2. Approximately 42% of state residents live in rural areas, the rest of the population is categorized as urban (See Chapter on Demographics). The average per capita income in 2003 was $29,164. Maine’s population density is half the national average and its per capita income is slightly below the national average (Table 1). 7,8

Maine’s North Woods contains over three million acres of forestland and stretches over Piscataquis, Aroostook, Penobscot, and Somerset counties. With the exception of Penobscot, these counties are all far below the state average population density (Figure 1).7  The 2005 Maine County Economic Forecast describes the disproportionate population densities and imbalanced economic development among the different regions within the state. The forecast states that Maine’s coastal counties are experiencing greater population and economic growth than either the central counties, such as Penobscot, or the Canada-bordering rim counties such as Piscataquis, Aroostook, and Somerset.9  These North Woods’ counties all have below-average population growth and economic development.

Piscataquis County is one of the slowest growing counties in Maine.9  It contains roughly 13% of the land area of the entire state. This county has the lowest population, the lowest per capita money income, and the lowest average population density of the four North Woods’ counties.7

New Hampshire has a population approximately the same size as Maine. The total land area is less than a third the size of Maine, resulting in a population density that is more than three times higher (Table 1).7  Despite the significantly higher population density, the state has only a slightly smaller percentage of rural population than Maine. And New Hampshire has a higher per capita income, which unlike Maine, is above the national average.7

Vermont’s population is less than half that of both Maine and New Hampshire (Table 1). Similar to New Hampshire, the land area is approximately a third the size of Maine. Consequently, the population density is over a third larger. Vermont also has a higher percentage of rural population than Maine. Vermont has a slightly higher per capita income but, similar to Maine, it is below the national average.

 

Table 9. Comparison of demographic variables for the US, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Piscataquis County, Maine7, 8, 10

Demographic Variables

United States

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Piscataquis

 County

Population, 2004

293,655,404

1,317,253

1,299,500

621,394

17,525

Rural Population, 2004

49,698,662

551,244

490,183

416,909

n/a

Percentage Rural

17

42

38

67

n/a

Per Capita Income, 2003

$31,472

$29,164

$35,140

$30,888

$20,962[2]

Land Area (sq. mi), 2000

3,537,438

30,862

8,968

9,250

3,966

Persons per sq. mi, 2000

79.6

41.3

137.8

65.8

4.3

 

GIS_JV_12-8

Figure 14. Conservation land throughout Maine and population density in the four North Woods’ counties11

 

Wildlife-Related Recreation in the US

According to the latest survey by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), over 82 million Americans participated in wildlife-related recreation during 2001 (Figure 2). This amounts to 39% of the total US population 16 years old and older that hunted, fished, or watched wildlife. Out of this total, 37.8 million were sportspersons and 66.1 million were wildlife-watchers. Of the total number of sportspersons, 34.1 million fished and 13 million hunted. Note that categories of participation overlap so that the sum of all participants from each category is greater than the total number of wildlife-related recreation participants. 12

 

Figure 15. The number of wildlife-related recreation participants 16 years old and older in the US in 200112

 

Anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watchers spent a total of $108 billion dollars towards their recreational activities. Roughly two-thirds of this spending was attributed to sportsmen and the other one-third was spent by wildlife-watchers. Of this expenditure, 26% was trip-related, this includes money spent on food, lodging, and transportation. Equipment purchases amounted to the majority of wildlife-related recreation spending totaling 60% of all expenditures. The total spending represents 1.1% of the US gross domestic product in 2001.13

The USFWS survey highlights significant shifts in participation and recreation spending. The number of anglers and hunters has declined since 1991 (Figure 3 and 4), but their total expenditures increased from $53 billion in 1991 to $70 billion in 2001. And, although the number of hunters declined over that ten-year period, the number of big game hunters, those hunting deer, bear, and moose, and migratory bird hunters remained constant. From 1991 to 2001, fishing expenditures increased by 14% and hunting expenditures increased by 29%.

Wildlife watching is a complex category because of the differentiation between those participating around their home and those actually taking trips away from home to watch wildlife. In 2001, 31% of the US claimed to participate in wildlife watching. Yet, the number of respondents taking trips away from home to watch wildlife has actually decreased by 27% between 1991 and 2001. Similar to sportsmen, wildlife-watching expenditures increased as well. Over the same ten-year period, expenditures by wildlife-watchers increased by 41%. The more recent shift in wildlife watching was a slight increase in total participants of five percent from 1996 to 2001. However, nonresidential wildlife-watchers, those who took trips away from home, decreased by eight percent over that five-year period.

The USFWS has conducted national wildlife-related recreation surveys of hunters and anglers since 1955.12  Between 1955 and 2001, the number of anglers has increased by 130%. The number of hunters has increased by 31%, but unlike fishing participation rates, this does not represent an increase in participation exceeding the nation’s 71% population growth and thus does not equal an increased proportion of hunters in the national population. The inclusion of wildlife watching as a survey category began in 1980. As noted before, the trend for wildlife-watchers has varied by type of wildlife watching. Nonresidential participation has decreased by 19% since 1980. Residential wildlife-watchers, referred to as “residential feeders” by the USFWS, meaning participants who feed wildlife around their home, has decreased by 18% since 1980.

 

Wildlife-Related Recreation in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont

In 2001, New England had resident participation rates of 13% and four percent for fishing and hunting respectively (Figure 3 and 4).14  At the same time, Maine’s resident anglers were 21% of the total population and resident hunters were 12%. Though Vermont had a comparable percentage of anglers at 20% of its population, and a larger percentage of hunters of 15.4%, its population is approximately one third the size of Maine’s. New Hampshire had 15.4% anglers and 5.5% hunters in its population. Therefore, compared to the US and New England, Maine has a much larger proportion of sportsmen in its population. And the state has a much larger overall number of sportsmen than either Vermont or New Hampshire.

 

 

Figure 16. Percentage of resident anglers 16 years old and older in the US, New England, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont reported in the past three USFWS national surveys for 1991, 1996, and 200112

 

Figure 17. Percentage of resident hunters 16 years old and older in the US, New England, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont reported in the past three USFWS national surveys for 1991, 1996, and 200112

 

As of 2004, over 37 Maine towns had a 30% or greater portion of residents holding hunting licenses.2  As mentioned earlier, these towns are often located in rural areas of Maine such as the North Woods region. In addition to the 38% of registered hunters in Greenville, the town of Jackman, which is another gateway community to the North Woods, had a 59% portion of its population holding hunting licenses. The number of fishing and hunting licenses purchased in the state over the past ten years has fluctuated up and down, though the overall trend has been decreasing (Figure 5). Fishing licenses show an overall decrease of 16% and hunting licenses, an overall decrease of ten percent from 1993 to 2003. A 2004 report by Vermont’s Fish and Wildlife Department notes a similar finding, the report states that Vermont’s hunting license sales continue to follow the nationwide decreasing trend.14  In spite of this, the 2004 fiscal year report by Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) shows a slight increase in total license sales from the previous year.15  An additional 16,000 resident hunting licenses were sold in 2004, compared to in 2003. Total licenses sold for 2004 was 411,633. The increase in license sales resulted in an increase in license sale revenue totaling just under one million dollars.

 

 

Figure 18. Hunting and fishing licenses purchased in Maine from 1993-200316, 17

 

Maine has the greatest number of anglers and hunters out of the three states, in terms of resident sportsmen recreating within their state of residence and in the total number of resident and nonresident sportsmen licensed in the state (Table 2 and Figure 8). When considering the proportion of residential to nonresidential sportsmen, all three states have a similar percentage of resident anglers out of the total number of in-state anglers. Maine and Vermont have a similar percentage of resident hunters, though New Hampshire has a slightly lower percentage.

 

 

Figure 19. Resident and nonresident anglers and hunters 16 years old and older in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 200112

 

Table 10. The total number of anglers and hunters 16 years old and older in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire in 2001 including the number and percentage of resident anglers and hunters out of the total; in thousands12

 

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Total Anglers

376

267

171

Resident Anglers

212

147

96

Percentage

56

55

56

Total Hunters

164

78

100

Resident Hunters

123

52

74

Percentage

75

67

74

 

The USFWS surveyed participants by their participation within a specific state, and, separately, calculated the sum total of resident sportsmen participating within their state of residence plus resident sportsmen taking out-of-state trips for recreation (Table 3). All three states have a slightly higher number of resident anglers when counting sportsmen who participated either in or out-of state. Maine had four thousand more anglers, New Hampshire had 17 thousand more, and Vermont had eight thousand more. The total number of resident hunters participating either in or out-of-state did not differ at all in Maine and was only an additional one thousand people in New Hampshire and Vermont.

Compared to the regional percentage of sportsmen in New England, both Maine and Vermont had higher-than-average percentages. New Hampshire had exactly the same percentage as the regional average for both hunters and anglers (Table 3). Maine and Vermont both had 17% resident anglers. Maine’s population of hunters was 10% of its total state population. Vermont had a slightly higher percentage of resident hunters at 12%.

 

Table 11. Resident participants 16 years old and older in wildlife-related recreation both in- and out-of-state in 2001 and a regional comparison, in thousands12

 

New England

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Total population, 2000

10,575

1,275

1,236

609

Resident anglers

1,402

216

164

104

Percentage of anglers out of total population

13

17

13

17

Resident hunters

386

123

53

75

Percentage of hunters out of total population

4

10

4

12

Resident wildlife-watchers

 

520

450

287

Percentage of wildlife-watchers out of total population

 

41

36

47

Total participants in wildlife-related recreation: resident and nonresident

 

975

892

569

Total regional sportspersons

1,504

 

 

 

Regional percentage of sportspersons out of total regional population

14

 

 

 

 

Wildlife-Related Recreation and Tourism in the North Woods

The Maine Highlands is known as a region for wildlife-related tourism in inland Maine. This region encompasses a large portion of North Woods’ Maine. The region contains Baxter State Park, Moosehead Lake, and the three destination towns of Bangor, Greenville, and Millinocket. A 2003 study of tourism in the Maine Highlands found that the area attracts about four million visits annually. This amounts to three million day visits, 0.8 million overnight stays, and 0.2 million visitors stopping in the region en route to another destination.18

One out of every ten visits to Maine includes some time spent in the Highlands region. The study noted that the primary drivers for recreation in this area were the availability of wilderness, wildlife, parks, and countryside.18  Additionally, visitors’ survey responses ranked the area far above the US norm in terms of the quality of sports and recreation opportunities. Of the largest destination drivers, Bangor receives around 50% of all Highlands’ overnight stays, the Moosehead Lake-Greenville area receives 15%, and the Baxter State Park-Katahdin area attracts around 14%.

The North Maine Woods Incorporated is a tourist and recreation destination within the Maine Highlands. This area is managed under the specific name “The North Maine Woods (NMW).”19  Management of the area began as an informal landowner committee in the 1960’s and it became legally established as a non-profit organization in 1981.19  Multiple owners manage this area containing over three million acres of commercial timberlands, conservation lands, campsites, sporting camps, and access points into the NMW. This organization of large and small landowners, corporations, conservation organizations, and government agencies such as the Maine Warden Service, manages the woods through a program of multiple-use.

This area of forestland within the greater northern and western forests of Maine, hosts over 200,000 visitors per year to the region’s woods, rivers, and sporting camps. Visitors pay day or overnight fees to hunt, fish, canoe, camp, hike, picnic, and guide. Visitors are charged and inventoried at numerous, seasonally staffed checkpoints located around the boundary of the woods. Several additional checkpoints are located at the Canadian border. The NMW, Inc records the number of visitor days and the purpose of each visit, and compiles an annual report on usage. From 1976 to 1997 there was a 72% increase in visits. Then from 1997 to 2001, the total number of visits increased by another 64% (Figure 8).3  However, visitor days have been decreasing since 1999. The large jump in visitor days can, for the most part, be attributed to the addition of 0.7 million acres of land in 1999.

The NMW Inc. tracks visitors-use within the activity categories of camping, fishing, hunting, canoeing, hiking, picnicking, guiding, visiting, and “other” (Figure 7).20  Hunting was the only activity with an overall increase in total visitor days, though the increase was 1.1% from 1976 to 2004. Hunting has averaged 24.1% of the total number of visits annually. Visiting private camps in the area is the most popular reason for coming to the NMW, it amounts to 30.6% of all visits. Fishing accounts for less visitor days, but similar to hunting, has had little change in the total number of fishing visits. Total visits for fishing only declined by 0.8% over almost three decades.

 

Figure 20. Total number of visitor days to the North Maine Woods Incorporated and visitor days for the purpose of hunting and fishing from 1976-200420

 

            Compared to the millions of acres of land managed as the NMW Inc., Vermont’s national forest contains only 3.2 thousand acres of recreational land. Yet the national forest receives between two and three million visitors annually.21  Similar to the decreasing trend in visitor days in the NMW Inc., New Hampshire’s national forest has also experienced a decrease in visitors. The state instituted a fee demonstration program for its national forest in 1998 to address increasing management costs. A 2003 annual report noted that total fee revenue was the lowest since the initial year of implementation. Additionally, New Hampshire has experienced a decrease in tourism throughout the entire state.22

            While many external factors affect tourism trends, hunting and fishing in Maine’s North Woods appear to be fairly stable. Overall decreases in hunting and fishing statewide can be attributed to decreasing tourism overall and decreasing sporting opportunities available in more densely populated and sprawling urban areas as rural populations decrease.

 

The Benefits of Wildlife-Related Recreation

Benefits to the state economy

Just this past October, Maine’s DIFW reported that hunting associated activities resulted in more than $450 million in economic activity.23  Hunting, by itself, is responsible for retail sales totaling $329.9 million, $129.9 million in household income, and over 6,000 jobs. The DIFW had similar findings in 1996.1  Additionally, in 1996 the DIFW found that sales tax and income tax from hunting amounted to approximately $27 million that year.

The 2001 USFWS National Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey summary for the state of Maine reported that the total in-state spending on wildlife-related recreation was $916 million.24  The majority of that expenditure, $504 million, was on equipment purchases, $297 million was trip-related, and $115 million was for licenses, fees, and other miscellaneous costs. Another figure reported by the Citizens Advisory Committee to Secure the Future of Maine’s Wildlife and Fish in January of 2001 was $1.4 billion in total economic output resulting from wildlife-related recreation.25  This figure was 4.9% of the state’s gross state product in 2001. This proportion of gross state product attributed to wildlife ranked Maine fifth below Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Vermont. Based on the figures generated by the committee, wildlife-related recreation had far more economic significance than the recreation industries of downhill skiing, valued at $250 million, and snowmobiling, valued at $225 million.

 

Benefits to tourism

Tourism and wildlife-related recreation are closely tied. Tourism represents a large industry group, encompassing several different industries. Outdoor recreation is part of this tourism industry group and contributes to the employment and revenue generated by tourism (Figure 8). In 2003, the Maine State Planning Office reported that tourism was one of the most significant industry groups in Maine, bringing in large amounts of money and providing possibly the highest number of jobs of any other sector of the economy.26  The Maine Department of Labor defines the tourist industry as arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodations and food service. A recent labor market report ranked Maine’s largest industries according to several different criteria. Several of the industries associated with tourism ranked in the top ten. As of 2003, “food services and drinking places” was the highest employing industry. Accommodations was ranked second after textile mills in the category of industries having the greatest growth in hiring. Scenic and sightseeing transportation was ranked as the highest industry in terms of greatest growth in average monthly earnings. In the category of industries with new or expanding businesses that are adding the greatest number of jobs food services ranked first, amusement, gambling, and recreation industries ranked third, and accommodations ranked ninth.27

David Vail, Professor of Economics at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine cites tourism as the second largest sector of Maine’s economy with a value of $5.4 billion, the total amount spent by resident and nonresident tourists.28  Maine’s tourism industry exceeds the combined economic contributions of agriculture, marine fisheries, and aquaculture.6  Tourism accounts for nearly seven percent of Maine’s gross state product and over ten percent of its employment[3]. Tourism creates the equivalent of over 70,000 full-time jobs. This direct employment from tourism is greater than the combined employment of the sectors of agriculture, marine fisheries, and aquaculture plus the forest products industry. Twenty-six million nonresident tourists visit Maine annually. And, in total, Maine hosts approximately 44 million tourists per year.

Surveys conducted by Maine’s Office of Tourism have gathered information concerning the drivers of tourism particular to the state of Maine. Survey respondents claim that “beautiful scenery and excellent resources for outdoor activities away from the coast” are the primary attractions in northern and inland sections of the state.6  Vail also notes that “a key marketing advantage is that lake and mountain landscapes in the Unorganized Territories retain the mystique of places both wild and accessible from the northeast megalopolis.”  Resources drawing tourists up north and inland include fishing villages, open farm landscapes, and forests such as the North Woods.

 

Figure 21. Tourist expenditures for wildlife-related recreation in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2001; tourist expenditures include food, gas, and lodging12

 

Benefits to conservation

Hunters across the nation spend $200 million annually in excise taxes on hunting equipment and ammunition. These taxes are a major source of funding for state fish and wildlife agencies. State agencies then put these funds toward hunter education and safety, land acquisition, and wildlife management. The Federal Duck Stamp, required for the hunting of migratory waterfowl, has generated funds for the purchase of over five million acres of national wildlife refuge lands. As a result, hunters have much influence in supporting the interests of outdoor recreation and conservation in our state and federal governments.29

According to Maine’s DIFW, approximately 75% of the cost of the state’s wildlife management programs comes from the Pittman-Robertson Act. This act, part of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, imposes an 11% excise tax on firearms, archery equipment, ammunition, and a 10% tax on pistols and revolvers. Each state receives funds based on land area and the number of hunting licenses sold. Maine receives an average of $1.7 million annually. The funds go toward both game and nongame species management, landowner relations programs, and habitat management projects. In 2004, that amount rose to $1.8 million.15, 30

Other funding for conservation efforts comes from hunting and fishing licenses, permits, fines, and other fees. In 2004, hunting and fishing licenses alone, purchased from Maine’s DIFW generated over $13 million. By itself, the moose lottery generates one million dollars annually.

Vermont’s Department of Fish and Wildlife Service also depends heavily on the revenue generated by hunting and fishing fees, excise taxes on sporting equipment, and taxes on boating fuels, for funding its management programs.31  The department noted that hunting and trapping license revenue, along with Pittman-Robertson funding, support the management and administration of the state’s wildlife management areas.21

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is heavily reliant on revenue from license fees as well. These fees generated $9.4 million in 2002. This amount of money accounted for 58% of the total department’s revenue, which included funding received from federal sources. Federal funds from the Pittman-Robertson excise tax accounted for 25% of total funds. Off-highway recreational vehicle registration, such as ATVs and snowmobiles, accounted for five percent, and another five percent came from the Unrefunded Gas Tax Transfer. In the 2005 fiscal year, the department collected $9.9 million in hunting and fishing license fees and permits, which amounted to 42% of the year’s total revenue.32

Sportsmen also influence conservation measures through alliances and sporting clubs. Minutes from the September 6, 2005 meeting of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) recorded the decision of the alliance to evaluate Plum Creek’s re-zoning proposal in terms of its conservation measures (See Chapter on Comprehensive Planning).33  Additionally, the members voted to stay active in the entire Land Use Regulation Commission’s evaluation process.2

Funds from hunting and fishing comprise a majority of state wildlife management budgets. Moreover, the funds accruing from these license fees have recently increased. Funds from excise taxes are also increasing as a result of the growth in spending by sportsmen. However, expenditures of state agencies managing the demands of outdoor recreation participants and wildlife protection are also growing. More resources need to be found to fund activities such as wildlife watching, which do not generate revenue accruing directly to these state agencies.

Issues Facing Outdoor Recreation in the North Woods

Ownership of recreation and conservation land

Only six percent of Maine’s total land area is public conservation and recreation land. The state controls about 75% of these public conservation and recreation areas. The DIFW manages only seven percent of this state-owned land while the Department of Conservation, through the Bureau of Parks and Lands, manages 51%.16

Eighty-eight percent of Maine’s state-owned conservation and recreation land is within its most rural counties. Piscataquis County has the largest amount of conservation and recreation acreage in the state. The majority of the county’s 371,000 acres of conservation and recreation land are located within Baxter State Park, most of which is not open to hunting (See Chapter on the State Park Model).

The Bureau of Parks and Lands manages Maine’s Public Reserved Lands. Maine’s Public Reserved Lands add up to approximately 0.5 million acres, which are divided into 29 units of varying sizes. The lands are maintained and remain free of charge and open to the public through timber management income. However, fees are charged in a few cases where land is managed by a neighboring landowner. Many of the recreational areas are accessible only by private, unpaved roads.34  The reserves are categorized into seven Dominant Resource areas with designated allowable activities that are ranked by natural resource sensitivity.35  Hunting and trapping are grouped as one type of use and fishing is listed as a separate use. Hunting and fishing are allowed on almost all the same types of land. Both are listed as secondary uses in areas designated for special ecological protection. Secondary Use is defined as a use or activity allowed where no other reasonable alternatives exist and they do not conflict with the dominant resource category values. Fishing is also listed as a secondary use for special historic or cultural protection areas. Hunting, however, is generally prohibited in these areas. Hunting is also prohibited in developed recreation areas, though fishing is an allowed activity. Both hunting and fishing are allowed in all other categories of Public Reserved Lands. These other areas are classified as backcountry areas, wildlife management areas, recreation areas, visual consideration areas, and timber management areas.

In 2001, the Bureau of Parks and Lands developed a new category of classification for Public Reserved Lands called ecological reserves. The reserves protect ecosystems in their natural state, maintaining native plant and animal species while also allowing for the traditional uses of hunting, fishing, and hiking. These reserves also permit the use of existing snowmobile and ATV trails if the impact is found to be minimal. The 2003 Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan listed 68,974 acres of Public Reserved Lands designated as ecological reserves. A monitoring plan is under development through the Maine Natural Areas Program in conjunction with the DIFW.16

Maine has an extensive amount of land under private conservation. Non-profit organizations and land trusts hold approximately 1.3 million acres of land, this is slightly more than the 1.29 million acres of conservation and recreation land held by the state. A substantial 77% of this private conservation land is held in easement by statewide organizations and trusts. For the most part, these lands are open to hunting and fishing. Restrictions usually apply in the case of motor vehicle and off-road vehicle access.16

Land trusts and the USFWS have worked together in Maine to acquire lands for national wildlife refuges. Currently, Maine has ten refuges located throughout the state. Four of these refuges are open to hunting. Of those same four refuges, three allow fishing.36

Vermont has 800,000 acres of conserved wildlife habitat open to public hunting. The state has a large part of its public recreation lands located on 380,000 acres of national forest. Approximately 60,000 acres are designated as wilderness areas, the rest are open to timber management, recreation and other activities. Additional recreational opportunities are available on wildlife management areas that cover 118,000 acres of the state within 85 separate management units. These areas are state owned and managed by Vermont’s Fish and Wildlife Service. There is only one national wildlife refuge located in the state of Vermont, it allows both hunting and fishing. New Hampshire’s national forest covers 751,000 acres, which equals ten percent of the land area in the state. Nearly all of this land is open to both hunting and fishing. Additionally, New Hampshire has four national wildlife refuges, one of which allows fishing and two of which allow hunting.37

The amount of public recreation lands in Maine is low at six percent of the entire state land area, additionally, the DIFW only manages seven percent of all of this land. Most of this land is located in the rural areas of Maine, and furthermore, a sizeable portion of this land, around 200,000 acres, is within Baxter state park. Of this two hundred thousand acres, only 28.6 thousand acres allow hunting.

Maine’s Public Reserved Lands depend on revenue from the timber industry, an industry whose future is uncertain in Maine. In some cases, access to these public reserved parks is through private lands that often charge access fees. The state is making efforts to expand available recreation land, which is evident through the addition of the public ecological reserves. However, private organizations continue to hold more land under conservation than the state. And the majority of this land is held by easement rather than complete ownership. Vermont and New Hampshire, both only a third the size of Maine, have a relatively similar amount of land held by the state for conservation and recreation. A study conducted in 2001 found that Maine had the smallest proportion of conservation land among seven states, a calculation of 5.4% compared to the highest ranking state with 37% conservation land.38  In addition, while Vermont has one third less land area than Maine, it has 85 separate wildlife management units while Maine has only 51.39  The proportion of available lands, amount and sources of funding, and the management ability of the agencies responsible for Maine’s recreational facilities are all concerns for outdoor recreation participants. In order to sustain current levels of recreation and, if possible, increase participation, the state needs to re-evaluate funding levels, sources of funding, and the needs of each management agency.

 

Public access to recreation land

Landowner relations have been a prevalent issue in the North Woods for at least the last ten years.40  In 1992 the DIFW addressed the growing tension between hunters, anglers, and landowners. The DIFW Committee for the Study of Access to Private and Public Lands in Maine noted that the decentralized legislation relating to trespass law and landowner liability, in addition to the lack of an identifiable enforcement agency, frustrated communications between sportsmen seeking permission for recreational use of private land.41  Maine landowners have liability protection against potential lawsuits if they choose to give permission for hunting and fishing. Yet, landowners have remained uncertain of this protection.

More recently, changing user trends are creating additional problems for maintaining public access. Maine’s ATV-registrations have increased over 200% from 1984 to 2004 (Figure 9).3, 15  The increase in ATV-use has created concerns by landowners of trespassing, liability, and environmental damage.

 

Figure 22. ATV registrations in Maine since legislation was enacted in 1984 up until the most recent Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife financial report for fiscal year 20043, 15

 

As mentioned previously, the majority of outdoor recreation in Maine occurs on private lands.42  Public access to lands for recreation is a growing issue in New England as a whole. In Vermont, the record at town clerks offices shows the amount of registered posted land more than doubling over the last thirty-five years, an increase from 106,007 acres to 214,329 acres. And that does not include the unregistered lands posted against trespass.14  Sportsmen in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and all throughout New England have relied on common law for access to inland waters, but there are no written laws guaranteeing this tradition of publicly-accessible, private lands and the colonial ordinance does not mention forestlands for hunting.43

Conservation activists, such as Jym St. Pierre from the organization RESTORE: The North Woods, and Maine’s game wardens have noted an increase in no-trespassing signs and gated roads on once-open land.44  In Maine, more land is being gated, gate charges for day-use are increasing, and lease fees for sporting camps are also increasing. In addition to these changes, kingdom lots are being purchased and posted against recreational access by people with land-use values that conflict with traditional users. Proposals for sub-divisions also pose significant reductions in public access to forestland and inland waters.6

Relationships between forest landowners and SAM, for example, are institutional based landowner-user agreements that help to sustain access to private lands for public recreation.42  In this specific case, the Sportsman’s Forest Landowners Alliance maintains access for vehicle-use for the purpose of sporting recreation.2  An additional example of cooperation for public access is the role of the DIFW in coordinating the sportsmen-landowner relations program.2

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department has addressed the issue of increased posting with its “Cooperative Sign Program.”  This program offers landowners several sign options for posting their land to allow for hunting purposes. Some examples are "Hunting by Permission Only," "Caution - Horses," or "Keep Out - Safety Zone."  The program addresses landowner concerns, educates landowners about liability issues, and promotes positive sportsmen-landowner relations while protecting public access.43

Maine’s alternative posting program, run by the DIFW’s Warden Service appears to be successful in establishing open lands and maintaining positive landowner-sportsmen relations. The program has secured a total of 266,306 acres for public access.45  These efforts have included opening lands previously posted against access and securing lands with the potential for posting against access.

 

Funding for Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Differences in the cost of licenses for fishing and hunting in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont may be limiting the amount of revenue received by Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The hunting and fishing licenses in these three states follow a relatively similar pricing system with generally higher costs for nonresident licenses and similar cost-levels for most license categories. However, certain licenses are offered to nonresidents in Maine that Vermont and New Hampshire do not sell. The major discrepancy was between the multiple-day licenses. All of the information gathered on state licensing systems can be found on each state’s fish and wildlife department website.

Maine offers one-day fishing licenses to both residents and non-residents for $12. New Hampshire and Vermont offer only nonresidents one-day licenses at $15. All three states sell seven-day nonresident fishing licenses. However, Maine also offers a 15-day nonresident fishing license.

If a visitor wanted to fish for more than seven days in New Hampshire or Vermont, they would find it cheaper to purchase a full season nonresident license, than to buy two seven-day licenses or a seven-day plus multiple one-day licenses. After purchasing a full season license, they would have the incentive to fish in that state more often because there would be no additional license fees. Maine’s system does not create the same incentive. If a visitor plans on fishing in Maine for more than one week they have the option of purchasing a 15-day fishing license for only four dollars more than the seven-day license, at $41. Therefore, they have less incentive to buy the $53 full-season license. Thus it follows that they would have less incentive to go fishing in Maine again during that season.

Price differences in resident licenses can be attributed to the per capita income of each state, as noted in the demographic overview. New Hampshire has the highest resident license prices, Maine is in the middle, and Vermont has the lowest prices. Nonresident licenses also differ in price. If Maine updated its nonresident license prices to reflect the higher prices of its neighboring state, New Hampshire, it would gain over $700,000 in additional revenue. In order to attain this level of additional revenue, Maine would have to discontinue the sale of its 15-day nonresident fishing license. The estimate of $700,000 was calculated by assuming that those people who purchased 15-day licenses would instead purchase the full season license at only twelve dollars more. These calculations were done using the 2004 Fiscal Year Report of Maine’s DIFW, which lists the number of licenses sold by category of license. The number of licenses sold in each category was multiplied by the New Hampshire license costs, and the number of 15-day licenses was multiplied by Maine’s full season nonresident license costs.

Policy Initiatives and Recommendations

Participants in wildlife-related outdoor recreation have been shown to experience a larger willingness to pay for their recreational experiences than they are usually charged.46  The 2004 USFWS study of the National Wildlife Refuge System, found that refuge visitors experienced over a billion dollars in consumer surplus from their visits. In 2003, a conference on Maine’s Natural Resource-based Industries led to policy decisions concerning ecotourism, natural resource dependent communities, and ways to capture more income for conserving the landscapes and traditions of rural Maine. Governor Baldacci introduced the “Maine Woods Initiative” shortly after. The initiative combined policy promises and proposals such as expanding the role of Maine's Office of Tourism in promoting regional, sustainable tourism.

As a result of the governor’s initiative, the New Markets Tax Credits program is being used by conservation and recreation organizations to fund sustainable tourism projects. These organizations are using the tax policy for projects that, to give one example, support the local economies of rural Maine by encouraging traditional recreation and sustainable forestry. In January of 2005, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) partnered with Citizens Bank to obtain discounted, long-term financing for a project encouraging ecotourism, sustainable forestry, traditional recreation, and educational programming in Piscataquis County and the surrounding regions. This project involves a 37,000-acre parcel of the North Woods formerly owned by International Paper and acquired by the AMC in December of 2003.

The AMC currently runs a sporting camp on this property and is working towards a comprehensive forest management and recreation plan, including a 10,000-acre ecological reserve. The remaining 27,000 acres will be open for forestry and recreation. The club has already hired a local Maine logging crew and plans to supply state saw mills with the harvest. The US Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund controls allocation and management of the tax credits program.

The Maine Woods Initiative has created a resounding impact on tourism, conservation efforts, and the value of Maine’s natural resources. The company Fermata Inc., an experiential-tourism consulting group, was contracted by the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development in 2004 to create a “Strategic Plan for Implementing the Maine Nature Tourism Initiative.”47  The plan was released in September of 2005 with prescriptions and priorities for action. Top priorities include comprehensive natural resource inventories, branding regions of Maine, specifically the Maine Highlands, and increasing the quality of guided tours and lodging facilities.48  Maine’s Office of Tourism has been given an expanded role as a marketing tool for the entire state and as a certification agency for ecotourism services.

Fermata already carried out three regional inventories of  natural, historical, and cultural resource. One pilot area included Greenville, Millinocket, and southern Piscataquis County. The strategic plan calls for a feasibility study or corridor management plan in the interest of creating a scenic byway through the Moosehead-Katahdin area. In its list of actions, Fermata noted that the state should try to cross-market to the local resident or traditional user, as well as to the eco-tourist in order to prevent resource-use conflicts and to optimize the use of natural resources. The plan includes many insights on the proper approach to sustainable tourism. Preliminary work for a regional itinerary guide has included requests to private landowners for permission to list their sites in the guidebook. The plan emphasized the importance of landowner relations and conveying the benefits and impacts of public use. Another prescribed action involving private landowner relations is the provision of compensation for public access. Most importantly, Fermata mentioned the need to define the carrying capacity of natural resources and communities in the regions under question.

As an alternative to the sportsmen-criticized national park model, the strategic plan mentions the work of the Maine Mountain Heritage Network. In November 2004, the network began the promotion of a plan for heritage-based tourism that markets the North Woods as a heritage landscape. The Heritage Network asked the National Park Service in July of 2005 to consider the North Woods for national designation as a heritage site. Proponents of this proposal note that it balances tradition, conservation, resource-use, and tourism without the burden of federal ownership.

Discussion

Compared to the proportion of participants in wildlife-related recreation in the nation, regionally, and in neighboring states, Maine has far greater numbers of sportsmen and wildlife-watchers. Nevertheless, the current focus of tourism initiatives toward wildlife-watching and other non-consumptive forms of outdoor recreation should take into consideration the general trend of decreasing participation in wildlife-related activities and traditional forms of outdoor recreation, which is occurring throughout the New England region the nation as a whole. Wildlife-watching, following the same downwards sloping movement as fishing and hunting, has decreased significantly since its peak in 1980. And comparatively, non-consumptive outdoor recreation does not generate as much overall spending as traditional sporting activities. Although wildlife-watchers do have higher participation rates than sportsmen, their total expenditure amounts to just over one-third of the total spending on wildlife-related recreation.12  This can be explained primarily by the much higher expenditures by sportsmen on equipment purchases.

A unique characteristic of Maine’s sporting population, which emphasizes the recreational importance of the North Woods, is the finding that in comparison to New Hampshire and Vermont, Maine has the least number of sportsmen traveling out of state for recreational purposes. Maine’s population not only has a large amount of sportsmen but, more significantly, it has a large amount that depends on the resources within the state for recreation. And the characteristics that attract tourists to the North Woods are theses qualities of wilderness, wildlife, and recreational opportunities that keep sportsmen in rural Maine. Another point of fact is that tourism in the NMW, Inc area is actually decreasing. Hunting and fishing remain stable, but the general notion of the executive director is that increased tourism would be generated by an increase in infrastructure development and amenities, which the landowners do not currently intend to invest in.20

The issue of development has only recently become a threat to the recreational use of land in northern and western Maine (See Chapter on the Timber Industry). Large parcels of timber industry land is changing hands, the demand for upgraded vacation facilities is increasing statewide, and real estate values are rising. As a result, the diminutive Land Use Regulation Commission is being pressed to make decisions that will affect 10.4 million acres of land, an area covering over half of the state of Maine (See Chapter on Comprehensive Planning).

Out of all the states in the nation, Maine has the highest proportion of housing units listed as vacant, seasonal, recreational, or occasional-use. Maine’s 15.6% is far above the US average of 3.1%. The state ranks just above Vermont at 14.6% and New Hampshire at 10.3%. In relation to county level seasonality issues, the southernmost York County is the highest in terms of numbers while Piscataquis has the highest proportion of seasonal homes at 40% of its total residences.18  This element of seasonality contributes to numerous economic issues facing the rural communities in the North Woods’ counties and should be a consideration when deciding on the type of recreational activities and development the region wants to promote. The governor’s initiative in 2004 and the actions so far resulting from the Natural Resource-based Industries Conference, have all focused on sustainable tourism. Specifically, this is tourism that will generate revenue in rural communities and stays in the community. Development for this type of tourism should not negatively impact community in terms of environmental quality or quality of life. But rather, they should embrace traditional values already present in the area.

In terms of the North Maine Woods Initiative it may be helpful for the Office of Tourism to look into Vermont’s strategies for attracting tourists. While Vermont ranks just behind Maine in the amount of seasonal housing that exists within the state, its national forests experience a much higher rate of visitation compared to the amount of land open for recreation. Meanwhile, New Hampshire reports that its White Mountain National Forest tourism is at an all-time low. More attention should be paid to the varying state strategies for attracting use of public recreation land.

Sportsmen’s contribution to conservation can be superficially measured in terms of the two million dollars in federal aid from excise taxes and over $13 million in license fees alone that support the DIFW. These monetary inputs leave out the significant public relations, education, lobbying, and private-public relationships that sportsmen commit their time to maintain. For example, SAM and other sporting groups are trying to improve the public opinion of hunters through an educational program supported by the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, a half dozen local sporting associations, and in partnership with the DIFW.2 

Sporting associations do not always hold the same views on recreation policy. George Smith of SAM testified in February of 2005 to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in support of the increased budget for the DIFW.49  This budget included the authorization of Sunday hunting, which is allowed in New Hampshire and Vermont but illegal in Maine. Smith spoke in favor of this action but, ultimately the proposal was taken off the budget because of the opposition of several landowner and sporting associations. Those opposed included the Maine Bowhunters Association, the Small Woodland Owners Association, Maine Farm Bureau, Maine Forest Products Council, Maine Trappers Association, and the Maine Professional Guides Association.50, 51.

SAM represents only one sporting group, but it appears to be very active in its appeals to influence public opinion. SAM has publicly announced its support for the Plum Creek development proposal.52, 53  However, it is unclear as to the influence that SAM’s support will have in shaping the decisions of the Land-Use Regulation Commission on Plum Creek’s proposal for re-zoning. George Smith has also published an article titled, “No National Park” on the SAM website, in reaction to the national park proposal championed by the non-profit conservation organization RESTORE: The North Woods.54  Smith’s article cites the low quality of seasonal tourism jobs, the lack of property tax revenue generated by federally owned land, and the decrease in timber industry jobs that would occur. He also cites a general dislike of federal control in mentioning just a few of the negative aspects he sees in the national park proposal. SAM, local sporting associations, and landowner organizations all influence state conservation, recreation, and land-use policy. Thus, the state must take all recreation participants, landowner associations, and public interest groups into consideration. The state legislature needs to be informed of the individual roles that sporting and landowner constituencies play in providing public recreational opportunities and keep these interests in mind when forming land-use policy for the North Woods.

Initial state efforts have been taken to address the changing needs of Maine’s sportsmen. The addition of ecological reserves to the Public Reserved Lands system has been one favorable action for both hunters and anglers. These lands have been set aside for conservation with guaranteed fishing and hunting opportunities and management in conjunction with the DIFW and the Bureau of Parks and Lands. However, the majority of conservation and recreation lands continue to be held by private conservation organizations. With over three-quarters of these lands held under easement, much control over the use and restrictions for access to the land remain in the hands of the primary landowner. Another important note is that the state has made strides toward tracking ownership changes and towards addressing funding needs for the DIFW.

Conclusion

Despite the decreasing nationwide trend in wildlife-related recreation, Maine appears to have a fairly stable population of resident anglers and hunters. Outdoor recreation is a valuable niche in the tourism industry that should continue to attract over a half million participants and produce hundreds of millions dollars in gross annual revenues.6  Furthermore, hunting and fishing continue to be essential to Maine’s state and local economies both in the revenue and jobs they generate, but also in their social and political influences, especially in the rural communities of the North Woods. The current status of state-level conservation management, the economic variations of the timber and real estate industries, and the values assigned to natural resources, combined with the constant fluctuations of recreation trends, make planning for the future a collaborative task between public and private interests.

Hunter and anglers have proved to be far more valuable than I expected. I feel this analysis and descriptive study is a helpful perspective for assessing the current attention being given to the concepts of ecotourism and sustainable tourism. An important finding in this study is that residential participation rates in consumptive wildlife-related recreation are far more economically valuable and more stable than they appear when looking at nationwide and statewide trends. Also important, is the clarification that wildlife watching as a recreational activity is not increasing in popularity, but rather, has been decreasing for more than a decade. Nevertheless, the sporting constituency appears to be a very stable and influential portion of Maine’s population. It constitutes over a quarter of the state’s residents, which are primarily located in rural Maine. Sportsmen should be given the utmost consideration when determining future uses of Maine’s North Woods for their past, present, and future contributions to wildlife-related recreation.

The Warden Service Report from 1999 provided an interesting and valuable glimpse into the stressful lives of Maine’s game wardens. The amount of wardens in service continues to be insufficient given the expanse of land that they are asked to patrol and the amount of calls that come in when wardens are supposedly off-duty. The report conveyed a comprehensive understanding of the role of game wardens, their job, perceived duties, actual duties, and changing roles in Maine’s sporting law enforcement. From the report, it seemed that game wardens were a largely undervalued resource. Instead, the state should increase the number of game wardens and increase the amount of input they provide pertaining to current recreational needs and uses of the North Woods, changing ownership patterns, and changing attitudes toward land-use.

In 2001, the Committee to Study Access to Private and Public Lands recommended two tax policies for revision. The revisions were intended to provide landowners some incentive to maintain their lands for public recreational use. Both of these policies provide decreased taxes to landowners who fulfill certain requirements such as maintaining working forests or open land for conservation. However, these tax laws do not require the landowner to allow public recreational use free of charge. One of the suggested requirements was to add an additional level of tax savings in exchange for the landowner guaranteeing public access without charge.41  Previous public policies regarding public access to private lands have been successful, resulting in the creation of a governor’s council on sportsmen-landowner relations.

Another policy success was mentioned in the Final Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee to Secure the Future of Maine's Wildlife. The report mentions land-use plans created under the DIFW’s Landscape Planning program, Beginning with Habitat,  which was initiated in 2000. The planning program addresses habitat fragmentation and species loss through a combination of proactive GIS planning, national biological data from the USFWS, and local data from the Maine Natural Areas Program.25, 55 

The DIFW depends largely on revenue from sportsmen to provide both environmental and legal services. Sportsmen in turn depend on the success of state wildlife management, sporting safety education, and landowner relations programs to ensure quality recreational opportunities. In order to preserve the resources currently available throughout Maine, the state needs to keep in mind the particular interests that exist within its populations. Sportsmen represent just one set of interests but they are vital in the conservation of land and wildlife, and in the public enjoyment of outdoor recreation.

 

Literature Cited

1Teisl, Mario F. and Kevin J. Boyle, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Hunting: A Boon to the Maine Economy. (1996) http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunttrap/hunt_management/federalaid.htm

2Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Why Maine Needs Hunters: A Media Guide for the 2004 Season. (2004) www.samcef.org

3Peabody, Colonel Timothy E. and Major Thomas A. Santaguida, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, The Maine Warden Service and the State of Maine: A Contemporary and Historical Overview. (2005)

4US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: State Overview; Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. (2002) http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/State_overview01.pdf

5Rose, Galen, Maine State Planning Office, The Maine Economy: Year-End Review and Outlook 2004. (2005)

6Vail, David, Blaine House Conference on Natural Resource-based Industries, November 17, 2003. "Sustaining Nature-Based Tourism in Vacationland", (2003).

7US Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts. (2005) http://quickfacts.census.gov

8US Department of Agriculture, The Economic Research Service, State Fact Sheets. (2005) http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/

9Maine State Planning Office, Maine County Economic Forecast. (2005) www.state.me.us/spo

10The Maine Development Foundation, Measures of Growth 2004: Performance Measures and Benchmarks to Achieve a Vibrant and Sustainable Economy for Maine, the Tenth Report of the Maine Economic Growth Council. (2004) www.mdf.org

11Maine.gov, MEGIS, Geographic Information Systems. (2000) http://megis.maine.gov/

12US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. (2002) http://www.fws.gov/fishing/

http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html

13The Journal of Parks and Recreation, "Wildlife-Related Recreation Provides Boost to Economy", Parks & Recreation, 37 (2002): 16

14Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, 2004 Vermont White-Tailed Deer Harvest Report. (2004) www.vtfishandwildlife.com

15Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Financial Report Fiscal Year 2004. (2004)

16Bureau of Parks and Lands, Department of Conservation, Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2008. (2003) http://www.state.me.us/doc/parks/programs/SCORP/index.html

17US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance, 2003 Fishing and Hunting License Certification Data: National Fishing and Hunting License Reports. (2004) http://federalaid.fws.gov/financialinfo/finainfo.html

18Longwoods International, Maine's Office of Tourism. "Travel and Tourism in Maine, the 2003 Visitors Study: The Maine Highlands", (2004).

19North Maine Woods Inc, History of the North Maine Woods. (2005) http://www.northmainewoods.org/

20Cowperthwaite, Al, "North Maine Woods Use Statistics," (2005) J. Venezia.

21Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Management Habitat Report 2005. (2005) http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/library/Reports_and_Documents/Fish_and_Wildlife/WMA_Habitat_Report_2005.pdf

22Wagner, Thomas G., USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest Recreation Fee 2003 Annual Report (2003) http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/

23Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Hunting in Maine Is Big Business. (2005) http://www.state.me.us/ifw/whatsnew/presrel.htm

24USFWS, US Department of the Interior, Quick Facts from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. (2001)

25Elliott, David C. and Becka Roolf, M. Legislature, Final Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee to Secure the Future of Maine's Wildlife and Fish. (2001)

26Rose, Galen, Maine State Planning Office, A Brief History of the Maine Economy. (2003) http://www.state.me.us/spo/economics/economics/

27Dorrer, John, Maine Department of Labor, Maine's Tourism Industry: New Tools for the Analysis of Workforce Composition, Dynamics and Earnings. (2005) http://www.state.me.us/labor/lmis/lehd.html

28Vail, David, Changing Maine: 1960-2010 (Gardiner and Portland Maine, 2004), 428-449

29US Fish and Wildlife Service, What Do Hunters Do for Conservation? (2005) www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html

30Elowe, Ken, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Federal Aid for Wildlife Management. (2005) http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunttrap/hunt_management/federalaid.htm

31Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, About Us. (2005) http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/about_history.cfm

32New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Fish and Game Funding, Fiscal Year 2002. (2005) www.wildlife.state.nh.us

33Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, "Sam Board Meeting Minutes", www.samcef.org  (2005)

34Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Department of Conservation, Maine's Public Reserved Lands. (2005) http://www.state.me.us/doc/parks/programs/prl.html

35Maine Department of Conservation, "Matrix of Allowed Uses: Allowable and Secondary Uses by Natural Resources Hierarchy Dominant Category

Dominant Categories Ranked from Most Sensitive to Least Sensitive", in 1998).

36US Fish and Wildlife Service, America's National Wildlife Refuge System. (2005) http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

37New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Where Can I Hunt in New Hampshire? (2006) http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/where_hunt_in_NH.htm

38Lewis, David, et al., "Conservation Lands Have Little Impact on Job or Population Growth in Rural Economies." University of Maine at Orono  (2001)

39Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Governor Presides over Re-Opening of Embden Hatchery. (2005) http://www.maine.gov/ifw/whatsnew/presrel.htm

40Maine Legislature Joint Standing Committee on Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, A Report on the Program of Landowner Relations to the Legislative Joint Standing Committee on Fisheries and Wildlife. (1992)

41Ippoliti, Jill and Danielle Fox, M. Legislature, Final Report of the Committee to Study Access to Private and Public Lands in Maine. (2001)

42Vail, David and Lars Hultkrantz, "Property Rights and Sustainable Nature Tourism: Adaptation and Mal-Adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA)", Ecological Economics 35 (2000): p.223-242

43New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Landowner and Hunter Frequently Asked Questions. (2005) www.wildlife.state.nh.us

44ST. Pierre, James A., "Remarks by Jym St. Pierre, Maine Director Restore: The North Woods at the First National Conference on Ecotourism in the United States", in, The First National Conference on Ecotourism in the United States (Bar Harbor, Maine, 2005).

45Anderson, Erik, "Governor Baldacci's Task Force on Traditional Uses and Public Access to Lands in Maine"  (2004).http://www.maine.gov/doc/publications/traditional_use/

46Caudill, James and Erin Henderson, US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Economics, Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. (2005) http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policyMakers/BankingOnNature.html

47Fermata Incorporated, "Strategic Plan for Implementing the Maine Nature Tourism Initiative"  (2004).http://www.fermatainc.com/maine/

48Fermata Incorporated, "Executive Summary: Strategic Plan for the Implementation of the Maine Nature Tourism Initiative", (2005).http://www.fermatainc.com/maine/

49Smith, George and Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Testimony in Support. (2005)

50Fleming, Deirdre, "Sunday Hunting Proposal Divides Sportsmen - and Its Not over Yet", MaineToday.com  (2005)

51Cover, Susan M., "Hunting Groups Seek Sunday Consensus", MaineToday.com  (2005)

52Edgecomb, Misty, "Plum Creek Floats Radical Land Use Plan", Piscataquis County Economic Development Council  (2004).http://www.pcedc.org/news/121504bdn.html

53Austin, Phyllis, "Plum Creek's Big Plan", Maine Environmental News  (2005).http://www.meepi.org/files05/pa021005.htm

54Smith, George, "No National Park", Sportsman's Alliance of Maine  (2005).www.samcef.org

55Habitat, Beginning with, "About Beginning with Habitat", www.beginningwithhabitat.org  (2003)



[1] The figure is from 2001 and includes only anglers and hunters, see references.

[2] Piscataquis County per capita income is a 2004 average estimate of the four poorest Maine counties: Piscataquis, Somerset, Oxford, and Washington. See References for source information.

[3] Excerpted from Vail’s conference paper, p4: A sector’s direct contribution to gross state product, or value added, equals its total sales minus expenditures for inputs from outside Maine. It also excludes multiplier effects. (Estimation techniques are discussed in Vail and Heldt 2000, Vail 2003.)

 

 

 

State of Maine's Environment, Colby College, Environmental Studies Program
Content by Students in ES493: Environmental Policy Practicum
Philip Nyhus, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
5358 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901 USA; Email Us