Sad state of our National Parks-II

caver wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

DallasSteve wrote:

And the "non-political" comments from Yosemite Sam continue.

Ok, please explain how any discussion of funding/maintenance/existence of the public parks, or anything else that is owned in common, can happen, other than talking about the policies of the people we elect to control the common? I can understand nobody wants dispersions cast on the ones we think are acting in our interest, but if we are not allowed to look at other policies that might be contrary to our interest can we call ourselves educated?

The PLBADC forum is under the grouping Destinations. This The PLBDAC forum states Share your experiences at places spectacular in scenery, rich in recreation or historic in nature. I feel your discussion would be better served in ATC. I don't come here for political discussions. The key word is Boondocking which many of us enjoy either because we like to get away from people or want to save money or both.

I thought Public Lands would include National Parks. I understand not liking political discussion. But a large percentage of RVers are interested in National parks, USACOE campgrounds, and other lands. The people vote for people we expect to represent our interest in the public lands. In most things, it is hard to educate others without influencing opinion, or making others with or without education, declare you are taking one side of the issue. I would prefer that everybody that is interested in the Public Lands do some research. Find out who has been put in charge, do their ideas agree with yours? Then call your employee, the senator that claims to represent you, and let them know what you think. But I understand, much better to spend the time and electrons discussing who got a touchdown in last week's soccer game.