Sad state of our National Parks-II

[Yosemite_Sam1]

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 to visit and see.

Just recently been to one of the most popular national park and the results of funding cuts (7%), fund diversion ($22 million for the frivolous July 4 parade) and distorted priorities or even hostility towards the environment (area around Sequoia National Park are set to be opened for oil explorations).

The symptoms of these are all over. Campsites opening late, maintenance not being done, exodus of park rangers and unfilled positions. One very obvious situations on the two camps I've stayed are slots marked unavailable because it's inaccessible when a simple mini dozer could have graded the dirt road, closing of all toilets because of unapproved requisitions and requests for repairs of pipes for the water system...

I've written the top federal department responsible -- not even a form letter acknowledgement of my concerns.

Maybe if more of us...

[ppine]

I thought we were talking about National Parks?

[lane_hog]

Got any real examples, or is it just a what-if?

Plenty of places in TX and NM we’ve seen where gas wells were drilled have been returned to grazing and other uses with zero impact. Actually, the gravel roads made to support drilling rigs were left behind and are better to drive on than what was there to begin with.

[JRscooby]

lane hog wrote:


As to your comment... there’s no signs that the current administration is even considering restricting access to public lands. There’s hyperbole and pearl-clutching from people who don’t like the fact their side lost an election, but so far, it seems that access is the same if not better.

Let me see. Do you really think that after public ground is leased to a private company to drill for oil, or cut the timber you will be allowed, or want to camp in that area?

[ppine]

Besides funding issues, National Parks suffer from a lack of management.

Drive through Yosemite some time. It has been protected for 150 years, first by the State and then NPS. It is the worst looking forest I have ever seen. Mile after mile of standing dead timber due to fire suppression and protection from logging. It is a recipe that we have learned does not work.

[lane_hog]

With how little traffic there is on the forums compared to years past, I wouldn’t read too much into the fact it was left here instead of moved.

As to your comment... there’s no signs that the current administration is even considering restricting access to public lands. There’s hyperbole and pearl-clutching from people who don’t like the fact their side lost an election, but so far, it seems that access is the same if not better.

https://wildlife.org/secretarial-order-signed-to-improve-public-access-to-federal-lands/

https://the-journal.com/articles/100319

http://www.trcp.org/2019/03/21/new-interior-order-supports-recreational-access-public-lands/

https://moabtimes.com/2019/06/07/blm-seeks-more-public-input-on-monticello-richfield-plans/

[JRscooby]

lane hog wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


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.

In the 15 years or so I’ve been visiting these forums, PLBDC has been about boondocking and dry camping only. Look at the sticky’s....all boondocking.

Discussion on established campgrounds on public lands.... has always been over in RV Parks, Campgrounds and Attractions....
https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/listings/forum/29.cfm

You quote me, so I feel I need to respond.
In many threads I see signs where Mods have decided a thread was started in the wrong place and moved it. Over 3 weeks, and on page 19, maybe others think the location works. I never moved it, just responded with thought to what is in the thread, not where it is.
And also, I am certain that the hostility of the heads of departments, if left un-checked will lead to less chances of enjoying the parts that are not currently developed. To think "I don't use CGs, so why should I care about CGs" is pretty short sighted, IMHO.

[lane_hog]

JRscooby wrote:


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.

In the 15 years or so I’ve been visiting these forums, PLBDC has been about boondocking and dry camping only. Look at the sticky’s....all boondocking.

Discussion on established campgrounds on public lands.... has always been over in RV Parks, Campgrounds and Attractions....
https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/listings/forum/29.cfm

[JRscooby]

caver wrote:



I've actually volunteered in a national park and you?

Well, I did spend a couple months as host at a State Park CG. Was a reminder that I am not the proper person to deal with public on a daily bases.

[caver]

JRscooby wrote:
But I understand, much better to spend the time and electrons discussing who got a touchdown in last week's soccer game.

I've actually volunteered in a national park and you?

[JRscooby]

Just for S&G, went back thru and counted;
27 posts stated the discussion was political. And of those 20 only stated the discussion was political and added nothing to the discussion...

[Horsedoc]

Original post sounds pretty political to me.
"Just recently been to one of the most popular national park and the results of funding cuts (7%), fund diversion ($22 million for the frivolous July 4 parade) and distorted priorities or even hostility towards the environment (area around Sequoia National Park are set to be opened for oil explorations).

[JRscooby]

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.

[caver]

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.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

DallasSteve wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

But as what's been happening, the administration is boasting strong economy and yet the parks' budget is still getting bigger and bigger cuts. And putting salt to the wound by appointing people who are actually against the agency's missions.

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

Don't you think I didn't voice my criticism and signed off on a petition to restore parks' funding during the last administration when the economy was showing signs of recovery.

The problem with uber partisanship is the whiny, wow and we know the whiny in chief, complaining and seeing politics under every rock they happen to live.

You obligation is to prove the post as untrue, not whine that it's political -- Argumentation & Debate 101.