Sad state of our National Parks-II
Again, this is not political. It is to our interest as RVers and for Camping World business to have an outstanding national parks that usually provide the cheaper camping facilities and best places t...
Forum Discussion
First, I want everybody to know and understand that this post is placed by somebody that 56 years ago, when the school system decided I should try to get more out of 7th grade by trying again, I decided to quit wasting my and the school system's time. The more educated of you might have a different view. But I think it is better if we think about the way others look at things.
You are likely right about the "closed". But funding for public parks in a country that claims to be a democracy is, and must be, a political. And in this country we are taught "We do not discuss politics in polite society" so we get to the point where politics can not be discussed politely. Which means the only exchange of ideas can happen is thru ads. IMHO, the lack of politeness is the reason sites must have, and enforce rules about political discussion.
While I agree, we need to " educate yourself, and others," I'm not so sure about the "particularly visitors from other nations." I think the percentage of visitors form other nations compared to the home grown slobs is small enough we should more focus on the natives.
IMHO, a equally, and maybe more important thing to educate ourselves about the opinions and and philosophy of the people appointed to run the agencies responsible for managing the public land. I posted
"And like many others, let's put "Acting" in the title, so no need to publicly discuss the non-qualification for the job."
not to poke jabs at anybody, but to point out that in times past the heads of the agencies had to be confirmed by the Senate. But the hearings for confirmation let the small percentage of people that believe politicians should be watched see the appointee may not be right for job. And also see their Senator vote for the unqualified. And if that is remembered, somebody might lose their job. So to protect jobs, we just call them "Acting Head of ..." so no hearings or vote needed.
monkey44 wrote:
I'd like to see this remain open to discuss the conditions of the parks. If we begin taking political pot-shots at individuals, we're aiming at 'closed' topic.
You are likely right about the "closed". But funding for public parks in a country that claims to be a democracy is, and must be, a political. And in this country we are taught "We do not discuss politics in polite society" so we get to the point where politics can not be discussed politely. Which means the only exchange of ideas can happen is thru ads. IMHO, the lack of politeness is the reason sites must have, and enforce rules about political discussion.
I've been camping and visiting national parks for too many years to count - well, don't want to count - and many are degrading due to crowds and due to visitors treating wildlife like a petting zoo.
Education of our visitors is paramount to our parks remaining a viable resource for watershed and wildlife habitats. Please educate yourself, and others, particularly visitors from other nations.
It's on US to save the parks and the wilderness areas they protect. WE own the parks, not the Feds, not the States, not the Vendors.
While I agree, we need to " educate yourself, and others," I'm not so sure about the "particularly visitors from other nations." I think the percentage of visitors form other nations compared to the home grown slobs is small enough we should more focus on the natives.
IMHO, a equally, and maybe more important thing to educate ourselves about the opinions and and philosophy of the people appointed to run the agencies responsible for managing the public land. I posted
"And like many others, let's put "Acting" in the title, so no need to publicly discuss the non-qualification for the job."
not to poke jabs at anybody, but to point out that in times past the heads of the agencies had to be confirmed by the Senate. But the hearings for confirmation let the small percentage of people that believe politicians should be watched see the appointee may not be right for job. And also see their Senator vote for the unqualified. And if that is remembered, somebody might lose their job. So to protect jobs, we just call them "Acting Head of ..." so no hearings or vote needed.
