An on-topic political development
 

wrote:
wrote:
The good news is that our political system worked, and the
Administration responded to a widespread public concern when formatting
the final policy. Although we can't operate motor boats in most of the
national parks, we are probably better off as a result.

Not wanting to opine the matter, but unless I'm missing something,
45000 people isn't really a great lobby barometer , let alone force
that I would say could promote "a widespread public concern" ,
especially on a federal level.

Or is it?

It would seem unusual that 45,000 people would take the time to write
letters about a pretty low profile government regulation. It was
significant enough that AP commented on it.

Very few of the polls we read bout anything ever sample 45,000 people.
That might be a better barometer than you think.

An on-topic political development
 

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:50:45 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


I'm sitting here shaking my head, wondering about "placing religious
symbols
and messages on park property". This reinforces my belief that if I
were
president and politicians suggested this sort of thing, I would have a
small
gang of dubious characters ready to take those idiots out behind the
White
House dumpsters for a tuneup involving a baseball bat, resulting in a
long
future in a wheelchair.


You and I are, apparently, of similar temperament and conviction......
thus, I pose this rhetorical question:

What is your course of action when the president's moral convictions
drives the imperative to "place religious symbols and messages on park
property?"

--

Does that include the National Mall and Memorial Parks?
http://www.nps.gov/nama/

And I can't wait for the motor wars to erupt over Voyageur's National
Park. The greens are itching to ban them, along with the evil
snowmobiles regardless of the promises made to the locals back in the
day.

del cecchi


Who made those promises?

National Park Service and the park promoters. "you will be able to fish
and hunt and use your boats just like before there was a park"


Sounds like one of those promises that fall into the category of "not very
likely". Shouldn't be believed, in other words, until it's known who REALLY
made the promise.

An on-topic political development
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
The good news is that our political system worked, and the
Administration responded to a widespread public concern when formatting
the final policy. Although we can't operate motor boats in most of the
national parks, we are probably better off as a result.

Not wanting to opine the matter, but unless I'm missing something,
45000 people isn't really a great lobby barometer , let alone force
that I would say could promote "a widespread public concern" ,
especially on a federal level.

Or is it?


45,000 may have represented the majority of park users in a particular
place.