The world is upside down. Doublespeak is everywhere.

Governments at all levels say one thing and mean another. The Russians say that they are pulling out of Georgia and their tanks keeping rolling toward the Georgian capital. The U.S. says that it will not tolerate the invasion of a free, sovereign nation but, in fact, it does.

Here in Maine, the Land Use Regulation Commission is preparing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that will decide what Maine can or can’t do with its expansive 10 million acres of woods and waters in the unorganized territories for the next 10 years. The policy document is close to completion. Still, the truth remains elusive when it comes to figuring out what CLUP really means for the future use of our forests.

LURC, the regulator, is saying one thing. The organizations that represent us, the regulated, are saying just the opposite.

Recently a guest on my Sunday night radio program, Sarah Giffen, a senior planner for LURC, repeatedly asserted that the criticism and concern being directed at CLUP were simply a case of “misunderstandings” or “misinformation.” It was an awkward interview. Giffen, well spoken and cool-headed, was nevertheless stubbornly elusive and unwilling to delve into specifics. Like a lawyer at a deposition, she stuck to her story. By her implication, she expects us to believe that everything is hunky dory, that smart, seasoned organizations such as Maine Forests Products Council (MFPC), Maine Professional Guides Association (MPGA), Sportsmen’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), and the Maine Snowmobilers Association (MSA) are all simply “misinformed.”

Given as testimony at a public hearing on CLUP, here are some sample comments delivered by these organizations:

1. MFPC: CLUP promotes “primitive pursuits” over all other types of recreation and will restrict motorized use in the Unorganized Territories. CLUP proposes limitations on property owners to either sell or pass it down to future generations. CLUP advocates for restricting the ability to build new or remodel existing structures, including camps.

2.MPGA: CLUP will result in major loss of our traditional open-land access privilege. CLUP will severely limit the landowner’s development potential. LURC should not be involved in promoting one form of outdoor recreation over another.

3. MSA: The revised CLUP takes recreational management to a higher level by suggesting that somehow LURC needs to take a larger role in managing not only recreation, but potential conflicts between recreational users.

4. SAM: “I am alarmed by the notion that someone other than the camp owner will determine the size and amenities that can be enjoyed at his or her camp. Some of the proposed language (in CLUP) is threatening to landowners, counter to the area’s economic needs, and detrimental to those who currently recreate there or who want to recreate there in the future.

Misinformation? Misunderstanding? I don’t think so. What is even more confounding is the question and answer segment about this revised plan offered by LURC on its Web site. In this question and answer segment, most of the concerns expressed above by those apprehensive about CLUP are categorically denied by LURC. For example, “It is not the intent of the draft plan to elevate primitive recreation over other types of recreation.”

The intent may not have been there, but the words are there. Everybody is on a different page. White is black. Black is white. The Russians are attacking, but say that they are pulling out. Included in the revised plan is a “Vision Statement” that seems to place so-called “primitive pursuits” as a predominant value above all other uses of our woods and waters. If you ask me, nothing reveals the doublespeak mentality surrounding the CLUP seduction better than this question and answer statement from LURC itself:

Is the Vision in the draft Plan (CLUP) substantially different from the Vision in the 1997 Plan?

No. The Vision in the draft Plan is very similar to the existing Vision. It may look different because it incorporates language about the principal values that was located in a separate section of the 1997 Plan.

V. Paul Reynolds is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide, co-host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” heard Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network (WVOM-FM 103.9, WCME-FM 96.7) and former information officer for the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. His e-mail address is [email protected].