Maine National Park (Portland, Augusta, Franklin: fences, shops, airport)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They sure do. I have been collecting their stuff for years. Here is a tiny snippet, but a fairly good summary of their beliefs and goals.
Global Sustainability requires: "the deliberate quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control."
Professor Maurice King
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
“A year is about one-fifth of the time we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in our world."
Garrett de Bell (1970)
"We reject the idea of private property."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audobon Society
"The necessary consequence of an egalitarian program is the decidedly inegalitarian creation of a ruthless power elite."
M. N. Rothbard
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
“Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease.”
Maurice Strong
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."
M. N. Rothbard
"'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature."
J. H. Robbins
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition."
Peter Singer, the "Father of Animal Rights"
“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
“Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation."
Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
By the way, did you know there was a pair of spotted owls nesting in the big red "K" of an abandoned K-Mart out there?
They sure do. I have been collecting their stuff for years. Here is a tiny snippet, but a fairly good summary of their beliefs and goals.
Global Sustainability requires: "the deliberate quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control."
Professor Maurice King
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
“A year is about one-fifth of the time we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in our world."
Garrett de Bell (1970)
"We reject the idea of private property."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audobon Society
"The necessary consequence of an egalitarian program is the decidedly inegalitarian creation of a ruthless power elite."
M. N. Rothbard
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
“Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease.”
Maurice Strong
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."
M. N. Rothbard
"'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature."
J. H. Robbins
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition."
Peter Singer, the "Father of Animal Rights"
“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
“Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation."
Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
By the way, did you know there was a pair of spotted owls nesting in the big red "K" of an abandoned K-Mart out there?
Touche! This stuff is priceless, though I have to suspect a few were delivered tongue in cheek.
Did not know about the K-Mart owl habitat, but it does not surprise me really. A bird's gotta do what a bird's gotta do. I have heard that big horned owls in Montana like to eat house cats.
Nope. They are dead serous. It is their religion. Eagles and coyotes love house cats. They really love it when kitty raises her back and hisses at them. It may work on beagle puppies, but it doesn't work on eagles and coyotes.
I've spent some time reading on these people's own forums, and NMLM is spot on. Actually it gets even worse, on several of the websites of the animal rights groups, members often openly call for mass murder, etc., of humans. Look up some Paul Watson quotes for some really crazy stuff.
I've spent some time reading on these people's own forums, and NMLM is spot on. Actually it gets even worse, on several of the websites of the animal rights groups, members often openly call for mass murder, etc., of humans. Look up some Paul Watson quotes for some really crazy stuff.
Well, no disagreements here about some of those on the crazy fringes, and since I share at least some of their ideals, it is that much more painful reading such lunacy. But I think we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Conservation minded people have no more similarity with those nutjobs than your typical muslim has with Bin Laden. I could point to some of Timothy McViegh's, Ted Kazinski's or some other nut cases writings to try to write off rural libertarians. Or the crazy Texans who just slaughtered a bunch of buffalo recently to make their point, that Texas is "cattle country." I suspect that most people are sensible and disgusted with moronic extremists and political slogans and half truths by those preaching to the various choirs.
Several people on this discussion have leveled an us vs. you type tone against me because I desire a thoughtful discussion of what I consider a very important topic. I never said I wanted a park there, I am in no position to do it, and would never want to hang out with crazed enviros like the forest ecology network. So, saying we (whoever that entails) are all the same seems pretty insulting to a lot of people. Can't we just get an argument based on facts?
For starters, is this the proposed 3.2M acre Maine Woods National Park area? If so, it seems absurd. What state would put 1/5 of its entire area in a national park?!
Moderator cut: Please do not post copy right images.
Last edited by 7th generation; 03-23-2010 at 05:38 AM..
Well, no disagreements here about some of those on the crazy fringes, and since I share at least some of their ideals, it is that much more painful reading such lunacy. But I think we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Conservation minded people have no more similarity with those nutjobs than your typical muslim has with Bin Laden. I could point to some of Timothy McViegh's, Ted Kazinski's or some other nut cases writings to try to write off rural libertarians. Or the crazy Texans who just slaughtered a bunch of buffalo recently to make their point, that Texas is "cattle country." I suspect that most people are sensible and disgusted with moronic extremists and political slogans and half truths by those preaching to the various choirs.
Several people on this discussion have leveled an us vs. you type tone against me because I desire a thoughtful discussion of what I consider a very important topic. I never said I wanted a park there, I am in no position to do it, and would never want to hang out with crazed enviros like the forest ecology network. So, saying we (whoever that entails) are all the same seems pretty insulting to a lot of people. Can't we just get an argument based on facts?
For starters, is this the proposed 3.2M acre Maine Woods National Park area? If so, it seems absurd. What state would put 1/5 of its entire area in a national park?!
"Absurd's" a good word. Now you see why people "up north" get a little testy over this - if you go back through threads of these types of discussions (not only on this forum board, but many others) you'll see that often people think it's "beating a dead horse" almost continually. Over and over again, the upper half of Maine has to defend its way of life from either environmentalists, or power-mongering regulators, so IMHO, it's become an "automatic" to go on the defensive now. I believe it was Maineah who said "What part of "no" do you not understand?" That's frustration talking. It's that "human nature" thing again.
In this regard, it may seem like they're taking it personally because really, they're tired of having people tell them what's good for them IMO. Maine has a very diverse mix of people who are good people, and who want to live the way they want to live and not have anyone from elsewhere try to tell them how much better their lives could be "if they would just do..."
That of course, is very frustrating to people who believe strongly that the woods must be saved at all costs - including human cost. While there are many people who are responsible stewards of lands and want to see things protected, people of Maine have often seen those "protections" severely change their ways of life. Many feel that any possible economic benefit is negligent, and certainly not worth the effort. Remember, roads are subject to the h*ll of winter up here (I don't think Oregon has ever experienced the likes of a "Maine Frost Heave - many are more like a catapult - and the damage they leave in their wake - correct me if I'm wrong) and are very costly to maintain. Wardens and law enforcement must also be paid for, and how much, really, would a national park contribute to offset those costs vs. the taxes that fulltime residents would be required to pay?
In Maine we have a lot of hunters, fisherman, snowmobilers, ATV's etc. etc. and the lands that were once free for recreational/hunting purposes are being closed off to those activities. Yes, just as in any state, we have our fair share of yahoo's who damage lands (and I'd be remiss not to mention the ones who have out-of-state plates on their pickups as well) but in the grand scheme of things, Mainers have historically worked with reputable land owners to utilize lands for recreational purposes. When you live in a state as rural as this one is, any idea that may limit access to those lands can (and often does) translate to "war." Try not to take it personally - you aren't the first to feel the ire.
Last edited by cebdark; 03-22-2010 at 10:32 PM..
Reason: added
"Absurd's" a good word. Now you see why people "up north" get a little testy over this - if you go back through threads of these types of discussions (not only on this forum board, but many others) you'll see that often people think it's "beating a dead horse" almost continually. Over and over again, the upper half of Maine has to defend its way of life from either environmentalists, or power-mongering regulators, so IMHO, it's become an "automatic" to go on the defensive now. I believe it was Maineah who said "What part of "no" do you not understand?" That's frustration talking. It's that "human nature" thing again.
In this regard, it may seem like they're taking it personally because really, they're tired of having people tell them what's good for them IMO. Maine has a very diverse mix of people who are good people, and who want to live the way they want to live and not have anyone from elsewhere try to tell them how much better their lives could be "if they would just do..."
That of course, is very frustrating to people who believe strongly that the woods must be saved at all costs - including human cost. While there are many people who are responsible stewards of lands and want to see things protected, people of Maine have often seen those "protections" severely change their ways of life. Many feel that any possible economic benefit is negligent, and certainly not worth the effort. Remember, roads are subject to the h*ll of winter up here (I don't think Oregon has ever experienced the likes of a "Maine Frost Heave - many are more like a catapult - and the damage they leave in their wake - correct me if I'm wrong) and are very costly to maintain. Wardens and law enforcement must also be paid for, and how much, really, would a national park contribute to offset those costs vs. the taxes that fulltime residents would be required to pay?
In Maine we have a lot of hunters, fisherman, snowmobilers, ATV's etc. etc. and the lands that were once free for recreational/hunting purposes are being closed off to those activities. Yes, just as in any state, we have our fair share of yahoo's who damage lands (and I'd be remiss not to mention the ones who have out-of-state plates on their pickups as well) but in the grand scheme of things, Mainers have historically worked with reputable land owners to utilize lands for recreational purposes. When you live in a state as rural as this one is, any idea that may limit access to those lands can (and often does) translate to "war." Try not to take it personally - you aren't the first to feel the ire.
Hey, no worries, I married an Irishwoman; I love a good argument.
Just curious. What proportion of Mainers support such a huge proposal? I cannot imagine it would go down nowhere in the lower 48. The only people who would propose something that huge must, by definition have nothing at stake (i.e., be from elsewhere) or worse yet, something financial to gain, and so probably would have almost no credibility. If this is the medicine RESTORE has been selling, I can see where folks are coming from.
My discussions above were built around the notion of a fine and sizable national park, but perhaps up to 500,000 acres or so. And that would be very large for the east. The largest park I work with, Crater Lake NP, is 180,000. They are proposing something 18 times as large in a state 1/3 the size. Sure...pass the bong dude.....
But are just the northern Maine people against it? Or are most Mainers opposed?
As the German guy used to say on "Laugh In" Very, very interestiiiinnnnk!!!
Well, no disagreements here about some of those on the crazy fringes, and since I share at least some of their ideals, it is that much more painful reading such lunacy. But I think we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Conservation minded people have no more similarity with those nutjobs than your typical muslim has with Bin Laden. I could point to some of Timothy McViegh's, Ted Kazinski's or some other nut cases writings to try to write off rural libertarians. Or the crazy Texans who just slaughtered a bunch of buffalo recently to make their point, that Texas is "cattle country." I suspect that most people are sensible and disgusted with moronic extremists and political slogans and half truths by those preaching to the various choirs.
Several people on this discussion have leveled an us vs. you type tone against me because I desire a thoughtful discussion of what I consider a very important topic. I never said I wanted a park there, I am in no position to do it, and would never want to hang out with crazed enviros like the forest ecology network. So, saying we (whoever that entails) are all the same seems pretty insulting to a lot of people. Can't we just get an argument based on facts?
For starters, is this the proposed 3.2M acre Maine Woods National Park area? If so, it seems absurd. What state would put 1/5 of its entire area in a national park?!
Yep, that's it. Do you realize how this topic is acid in the eyes to a lot of us here in Maine. The proposal is ludicrous, but if it even gets chopped down to half that size, it's still huge.
Frankly, I feel that we have been giving over too much of the states taxable land to non-taxable status.
There's the nugget. Any time somebody asks for a thoughtful discussion about you giving up your God given rights the appropriate fist question would be to ask him what he is prepared to give up. They are never prepared to give up any of their previous gains. They only want to know what additional amount of our rights we are willing to give up this time.
There is a name for their technique and they are very good at it. It is called the Delphi Technique. It originated with the techniques that the Red Chinese used on our American prisoners in Korea. Some call it brainwashing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
