JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

No point worrying too much about what *didn't* happen.

We almost had the right to go motor boating in more National Parks. Now
of course the number of people who would *want* to motor boat in a park
would be significantly reduced under certain conditions. Can you
imagine a billboard along side the road, with a white bearded prophet
and a halo replacing Smokey the Bear and his hat? "Only YOU can avoid
hell fires!" :-)

Then there's Yellowstone, of course. Under "commercialization and
privitization." On mega-loud speakers blaring in all directions: "The
last eruption of Old Faithful was brought to you by Viagara. Want to
get it up and spout like a geyser? Want to be able to perform every 60
minutes? Ask your doctor about Viagara today."

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.

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?

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.

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.