Jump to content

National Parks Service's Maintenance Backlog


Velos

Recommended Posts

Most National Parks already have a contract for a concession company to run the camp grounds, lodges, gift shops, and restaurants within the park.

2015 Itasca Ellipse 42QD

2017 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Hard Rock Edition

2021 Harley Street Glide Special 

Fulltimer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would handle law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire protection? What about bear management and wolf management? Who would be liable when someone gets gored by a bison or mauled by a bear? There is research ongoing about the enzymes and bi-organisms in Yellowstone's thermal features. Would they be turned into marketable products?

 

I am all for free enterprise but I am not sure I want to see such precious and unique natural features as for-profit business ventures. I've seen Yellowstone through for-profit eyes and through natural resource preservation eyes. I vote to keep them as they are and keep the focus on the natural resources.

The richest are not those who have the most, but those who need the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$11 per day, per person visitation fee at Yellowstone, would cover the operating costs of the park, according to the article referenced in the OP. That would be up from a $30 seven day pass for a personal vehicle with typically 1-6 passengers (i.e. family or friends).

 

It really sounds simple to me. Instead of privatizing the parks, just let Yellowstone charge the $11 daily fee (and keep all the money in the park) and it should provide plenty of money for the park.

 

I would be afraid that like most everything the US government asks for from a private enterprise, once the bid is accepted the companies come back and say well do to certain changes the cost is going up.

 

So what would keep the franchises from going from $11/day to say $15 in 2-5 years? Plus an extra fee to hike certain trails. After all it costs money to maintain the trail.

 

How about a $5 per person fee to walk the geyser basin near old faithful. Probably keep old faithful free for the viewing, but charge for the rest of the geyser basin.

Al & Sharon
2006 Winnebago Journey 36G 
2020 Chevy Colorado Toad
San Antonio, TX

http://downtheroadaroundthebend.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who has traveled outside of the US much should be aware that the US National Park System is one of the most unique features of this country. No other country has even close to the protected resources with visitor services that we have. As popular as some of our national parks are, there are many unique places that our park system cares for under the monument, preserve, historic site, several other names which are cared for and many of them have fairly low numbers of visitors with little or no means of financial support other than Congressional appropriations. At last count there were 413 different sites across the country that the NPS is responsible for. While some of them might be able to generate income to do as that article suggests, many others would simply cease to exist under such a system. In addition to that problem is the fact that many of us have long held the belief that the cost of visiting our national treasures should be maintained low enough for even the low income citizens to be able to afford a visit. Then there are such things as our beloved senior pass and the disabled pass which get large numbers of us into those facilities for free!

 

When the NPS was created they were just charged with protecting the properties and very little more. Over the years we have added many new properties and increased the services that we demand to include naturalists, living historians, law enforcement, roads & parking, and a long list of other services, many of which we expect to be included in entry cost or inexpensive and those must be funded in some way. Somewhere along our route to the point in history that we now find ourselves, we have come to expect government agencies to do more and more while funding grows very little if at all. While none of us likely want to pay more in taxes, we can not continue to get services in our parks and have features preserved if we do not find some way to fund them.

 

But the National Parks are only a part of the problem since places like the Army Corps of Engineers parks are very popular with we retired folks because we can stay in them for such small fees. There are several other federal agencies that provide parks with less income generated in them that is needed to maintain them and most states are experiencing that same issue in their parks. We US citizens are blessed with the finest selection of parks in the entire world, but we are going to have to find some way to pay for them if they are to continue to exist. It really doesn't matter who is in power, this problem is not going away without some major changes and no matter what means of paying the costs is used, there are going to be many angry people who think that it should be done in some other way. As popular as it is to suggest that agencies need to cut waste, there is nowhere even close to enough waste to do much good. Most agencies are depending more and more upon volunteers and we in the RV community have both contributed to and benefited from such efforts and more could be done in that area but you will never solve the maintenance problem with volunteers alone. It requires money and some of us are going to have to pay more if we are to continue to have the parks we now have, and most of the public is asking for more. Overcrowding is making the problem nearly unmanageable in our most popular parks and increasing visitation add stress and strain to more parks every year. This is a problem that is not going away and we either find ways to increase funding to our parks or we can watch them be destroyed.

 

History has long proven that government rarely if ever provides the sort of efficient operation that a profit motive can. That is one of the reasons that so many services in our busier parks have been contracted to vendors, but it also surrenders some of the public control and is difficult to withdraw from. I highly doubt that an easy or inexpensive solution that would work exists.

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcrowding is a big reason for not being able to keep up with the infrastructure of our parks. Rangers will tell you that our parks are being loved to death. As volunteers we've been able to see behind the scenes at how many visitors treat our parks. It's not good. Vandalism is common and a lot of money is spent on that alone. The parks receive enough from the General Fund to do the bare minimum. Entrance fees help and they stay in the parks but it's not nearly enough. It's a big problem but I really don't think turning the parks over to a private company will be good for the parks. More modern conveniences would possible be added which will ruin the beauty of the parks. The parks should be left in their natural state and folks should visit for that purpose only.

Full-timed for 16 Years
Traveled 8 yr in a 2004 Newmar Dutch Star 40' Motorhome
and 8 yr in a 33' Travel Supreme 5th Wheel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm going to say this but here goes. "Increase to entry fees". Simple. As pointed out above the parks are being loved to death. Often by folks who never go more than 100 yard from their vehicle. I know there are some folks who can't get far from their vehicles but that can be taken care of. But until the pressure is taken off the parks then little can be done.

Washington needs to take a very hard look at what the NPS stands for. While the military may be critical for the defense of the country the NPS is critical for the 'mental' well being of the country. It's your heritage. As Kirk pointed out. The USA is awash with NPs that are the envy of the rest of the world. Sadly many Americans simply take them for granted.

Once they are gone then they can't simply be bought back.

 

Back in May we visited Zion. All I could say was, "let me out of here". One agonizingly long traffic snarl. That's not how it should be. Other than finding the point of resistance with fee increases I have no other bright ideas. But save them you must because as a selfish foreign visitor I want to enjoy your parks. Be they wide open wildernesses or historic home. Save them.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, a big chunk of this country over the last 10-15 years has pushed hard to cut government spending and lower taxes. Now it looks this group is going to be much, much stronger over the next number of years. So don't look for any increased spending for the natural environment especially for National Parks and National Forests.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for reduced taxes, but you can't have increased government services with having some way for the government to get the money to pay for the services we want and demand.

Al & Sharon
2006 Winnebago Journey 36G 
2020 Chevy Colorado Toad
San Antonio, TX

http://downtheroadaroundthebend.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worry less about the existing national parks since they are so popular than the surrounding public lands that could get sold off. National Parks have become to busy for us and a big plus of fulltiming is that you have time to explore and find real gems on public land without the crowds.

Dave and Lana Hasper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one looks at the total U.S. population, I am not so sure that the National Parks are considered with the same deep regard and reverence that they are on this forum or in the RVing community. In 2015, Disney World had 20.4 million visitors and Disneyland 18.2 million in comparison to 10.7 million and 4.1 million for Great Smoky Mountain and Yellowstone National Parks. The daily entrance fee for the Disney Parks is about $60-70 per person per day. So, it seems that at least some are willing to pay more then $25 per vehicle full of passengers for 7 days for their recreational pursuits.

 

Another funding mechanism that has been suggested over the years, is the institution of an excise tax on all camping, hiking, outdoor recreation equipment, RVs, ATVs, etc., similar to the ones on fishing tackle, firearms and ammunition. This proposal has met enough opposition from the recreation industry and user groups that it has never really gotten off the ground. In my opinion and experience, part of this opposition has been fostered for many years by the concept of non-consumptive use. That meaning that if you did not actually kill or consume something that there was little to no effect on the environment or wildlife populations. Only now with a better understanding of the impacts of visitation, human/wildlife conflicts, and the long term impacts of habitat disturbance is it being realized that these activities can have more severe and longer lasting impacts than the demise of individual animals through hunting or fishing.

The one that dies with the most toys is still dead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcrowding is a big reason for not being able to keep up with the infrastructure of our parks. Rangers will tell you that our parks are being loved to death. As volunteers we've been able to see behind the scenes at how many visitors treat our parks. It's not good. Vandalism is common and a lot of money is spent on that alone. The parks receive enough from the General Fund to do the bare minimum. Entrance fees help and they stay in the parks but it's not nearly enough. It's a big problem but I really don't think turning the parks over to a private company will be good for the parks. More modern conveniences would possible be added which will ruin the beauty of the parks. The parks should be left in their natural state and folks should visit for that purpose only.

AMEN to that! There is a thread on a different forum about establishing daily occupancy limits for the most popular parks in order to manage park resources. I think that will happen, or our children may not be able to enjoy what we have already seen and enjoyed.

People can be wasteful, ignorant of surroundings, and/or couldn't care less. It's that minority causing most of the problems.

 

2000 Winnebago Ultimate Freedom USQ40JD, ISC 8.3 Cummins 350, Spartan MM Chassis. USA IN 1SG retired;Good Sam Life member,FMCA ." And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.  John F. Kennedy 20 Jan 1961

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a thread on a different forum about establishing daily occupancy limits for the most popular parks in order to manage park resources. I think that will happen, or our children may not be able to enjoy what we have already seen and enjoyed.

Part of the problem is that visitation is not evenly distributed nor is access always good. We have many larger parks such as Yellowstone and Everglades that only a very small portion is ever seen by the public and less than 10% is accessible by motor vehicle. Part of the visitation to some parks being high while others have little visitation is due to publicity since I suspect even those contributing to this thread have never seen even half of the locations protected by the NPS. A while back Pam & I went through a listing of NPS facilities and we found that we have only visited 35 of the 61 national parks and about 150 of the 413 NPS managed properties. I suspect that we have actually been to more than most American citizens. It is difficult to convince people of a great value to resources that they never see or have access to.

 

National Park Service

Agency overview Employees 15,828 permanent, 1,256 term, 2,984 seasonal (2007) Annual budget $2.924 billion (2009)

I wonder how many citizens have ever visited even 1 or our major national parks? I'm sure that there are a significant number who have not. I also suspect that most of us have visited at least a few historic sites which are managed by the NPS but which are not national parks. Some properties are very large while others are tiny.

 

There are some very important historic sites that have been run by private foundations for many years at no cost to us in taxes. A couple of examples would be Mt. Vernon and the Alamo, and the Nature Conservancy manages vast areas of preserved natural lands that would otherwise not be protected. There is little doubt that in some situations resources can be and have been managed well by private organizations and some by private/public partnerships.

 

Another part of this whole problem is that of how much access is right? If you were to build more roads and more parking in a place like Yellowstone then more visitors could be accommodated. Is the first duty of a park the protection of resources or is it the accommodation of visitors? With limited funds, which of those is to take first priority? There are some who want to close all of the RV parks and even some the campgrounds inside of the major parks to allow more access for those who come by car, or to lower the number of visitors. So which visitors should take priority? If you do limit the number of visitors per day, how do you determine who gets inside, first come or lottery, or.............. ? None of these questions have easy answers and there are many different groups that will have very different views of what plan is best. Perhaps if we allowed mineral development in some remote areas that could raise the funding for developed areas, or even increased facilities to accomadate greater numbers of visitors? Perhaps we could create a scaled entrance fee so that it would cost most to enter at the busiest season and off season could have very low fees? There is also the question, what value does preserved lands have when nobody gets to see them? Why should the city dweller who never goes into remote areas help to pay the cost of preserving them?

 

None of this has any easy answers that satisfy everyone and many have mostly answers that satisfy very few. :huh:

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....None of these questions have easy answers and there are many different groups that will have very different views of what plan is best. Perhaps if we allowed mineral development in some remote areas that could raise the funding for developed areas, or even increased facilities to accommodate greater numbers of visitors? Perhaps we could create a scaled entrance fee so that it would cost most to enter at the busiest season and off season could have very low fees? There is also the question, what value does preserved lands have when nobody gets to see them? Why should the city dweller who never goes into remote areas help to pay the cost of preserving them?

 

None of this has any easy answers that satisfy everyone and many have mostly answers that satisfy very few. :huh:

 

Great suggestions Kirk, thanks for posting.

 

It is so important to brainstorm ideas for a solution, as you said the answers may not satisfy everyone but if all have the goal is to keep these parks open for future generations a mix of the many suggestions would be a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm going to say this but here goes. "Increase to entry fees". Simple. As pointed out above the parks are being loved to death. Often by folks who never go more than 100 yard from their vehicle. I know there are some folks who can't get far from their vehicles but that can be taken care of. But until the pressure is taken off the parks then little can be done.

Washington needs to take a very hard look at what the NPS stands for. While the military may be critical for the defense of the country the NPS is critical for the 'mental' well being of the country. It's your heritage. As Kirk pointed out. The USA is awash with NPs that are the envy of the rest of the world. Sadly many Americans simply take them for granted.

Once they are gone then they can't simply be bought back.

 

Back in May we visited Zion. All I could say was, "let me out of here". One agonizingly long traffic snarl. That's not how it should be. Other than finding the point of resistance with fee increases I have no other bright ideas. But save them you must because as a selfish foreign visitor I want to enjoy your parks. Be they wide open wildernesses or historic home. Save them.

 

regards

Noooooo! Please don't suggest outpricing the parks for the common man. The parks belong to EVERYONE, not just the elite ($$$) few. I am emphatically against increasing entrance fees until hardly anyone can afford to come anymore.

 

I am, however, in favor of limiting visitation. It might come to having to make reservations ahead of time just to get into a park. Think of the White House, aka "the people's house". Anyone is allowed to go visit, but you have to make your reservations well in advance. But it's open to We the People, and it's free. Joe Shmoe who earns $20,000 a year can go to the White House, if he thinks ahead a little bit. I think that's the model the parks might have to eventually follow. But let's not raise the entrance fees so Joe Shmoe can't afford to go.

Stephen & Karen and our six boys, ages 21, 21, 19, 17, 14, & 11
Stephen - Military retiree (as of summer 2012) & current DOI employee (Big Bend National Park)
Karen - Homeschooling stay-at-home mom & veteran
San Antonio, Texas

Fulltimed May 2013 - July 2014 (yes, all eight of us!)
Open Range "Rolling Thunder" (H396RGR - fifth wheel toy hauler bunkhouse) - SOLD
Ford F-350 diesel dually - for the camper
Ford E-350 fifteen passenger van - for the crew

Our unfinished travel blog: http://coach-and-six.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk has the hardest question to answer. "Is the first duty of a park the protection of resources or is it the accommodation of visitors?". Answer that question and the rest becomes a lot easier. Stephen Mather asked the same question way back in the early 1900's. Everyone is still asking the same question.

 

Like all commodities it's a matter of supply and demand. Increase the entry fees until the demand balances out. There could also be an 'off season' fee.

 

Zion is a great example. There are 3 'zones' to Zion. Who has been to all 3 'zones'?

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noooooo! Please don't suggest outpricing the parks for the common man. The parks belong to EVERYONE, not just the elite ($$$) few. I am emphatically against increasing entrance fees until hardly anyone can afford to come anymore.

 

I am, however, in favor of limiting visitation. It might come to having to make reservations ahead of time just to get into a park. Think of the White House, aka "the people's house". Anyone is allowed to go visit, but you have to make your reservations well in advance. But it's open to We the People, and it's free. Joe Shmoe who earns $20,000 a year can go to the White House, if he thinks ahead a little bit. I think that's the model the parks might have to eventually follow. But let's not raise the entrance fees so Joe Shmoe can't afford to go.

 

Like!!!

 

Linda Sand

Blog: http://sandcastle.sandsys.org/

Former Rigs: Liesure Travel van, Winnebago View 24H, Winnebago Journey 34Y, Sportsmobile Sprinter conversion van

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no one answer. Making a reservation is a route to disaster. We were recently up in Glacier. The day we arrived they had issues with the entry road. So they closed the road effectively closing the park. What if we had a one day reservation and only had one day to use it with other commitments?

 

Price is an issue. But my guess is that the vast majority of folks visit on a day basis paying the full entry fee. How many take advantage of the annual pass etc? So for those worried about an increased entry fees there would/could/are alternatives to get a better deal. The current annual pass is an excellent deal and I can't imagine anyone complaining about it's value.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of fees, how about a frank discussion of the Senior Pass?? This gives a significant group of people free entry into National Parks (along with many other federal agency lands and facilities) and in many cases half-priced camping as well. In our travels I've been amazed at times at the high percentage of people visiting and camping in National Parks that are paying half-price for their camping and nothing to enter.

 

I'm guessing that a high percentage of people on this message board are holders of a Senior Pass, and so the idea of modifying the benefits may not be popular. But how about it? Make it half price to enter and perhaps 25% off of camping fees??

Mark & Teri

2021 Grand Designs Imagine 2500RL, 2019 Ford F-350

Mark & Teri's Travels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most National Parks already have a contract for a concession company to run the camp grounds, lodges, gift shops, and restaurants within the park.

 

That's what I've heard as well... making me wonder who set-up the contracts and whether they are simply lopsided in favor of the concession folks. Yellowstone, has been setting records in recent years for attendance, so low revenue from admission fees would not appear to be the problem. It could also be poor management and use of the funds they have... or that they incurred a significant amount of unanticipated expenses??

 

 

While we're on the subject of fees, how about a frank discussion of the Senior Pass?? This gives a significant group of people free entry into National Parks (along with many other federal agency lands and facilities) and in many cases half-priced camping as well. In our travels I've been amazed at times at the high percentage of people visiting and camping in National Parks that are paying half-price for their camping and nothing to enter.

 

I'm guessing that a high percentage of people on this message board are holders of a Senior Pass, and so the idea of modifying the benefits may not be popular. But how about it? Make it half price to enter and perhaps 25% off of camping fees??

 

Great point. I have some older friends who I know do not need the discount based on their financial position. It would be interesting to see the data on how much the park system loses in revenue for the discount programs. Yes, w/o it they would lose attendance, but perhaps still a net increase to help their challenged operating budgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noooooo! Please don't suggest outpricing the parks for the common man. The parks belong to EVERYONE, not just the elite ($$$) few. I am emphatically against increasing entrance fees until hardly anyone can afford to come anymore.

While fee increases may not be a good alternative, it may be time to at least consider some sort of change in them. Perhaps the length of time the fee is good for might help?

 

While we're on the subject of fees, how about a frank discussion of the Senior Pass??

.............

I'm guessing that a high percentage of people on this message board are holders of a Senior Pass, and so the idea of modifying the benefits may not be popular. But how about it? Make it half price to enter and perhaps 25% off of camping fees??

I am sure that there are many on these forums who do use the senior pass and I am one of them. Pam & I each have one and we have used ours a great deal. These are good at many places beyond the national parks and we use ours most at the COE campgrounds. A fee increase for them would not change a great deal since they are a one time fee and last for life. If you double that fee, it has no impact at all upon we who already have them and so would do very little to solve the crisis long term unless you either do away with them or make then only a discount card. Perhaps start to charge senior pass holders a small fee? It has been years since we last camped in a national park but we use the entry pass there often and the camp discount at both COE and BLM campgrounds.

 

 

That's what I've heard as well... making me wonder who set-up the contracts and whether they are simply lopsided in favor of the concession folks. Yellowstone, has been setting records in recent years for attendance, so low revenue from admission fees would not appear to be the problem. It could also be poor management and use of the funds they have... or that they incurred a significant amount of unanticipated expenses??

It is no secret that many of the services in our national parks are provided by vendors. If the park has food service that has been the case for many years. I don't believe that the park service ever did provide food service and over the years the vendor services have been extended, in most cases doing so to increase the available services. The vendors pay fees to the parks in return for their operating rights and those are typically a share of the profits. I'm not sure what makes you think means someone is cheating as those contracts go up for bid every few years and the vendor does sometimes change based upon those bids.

 

I realize that governmental agencies are a popular target and mismanagement does happen but most of that is built into the system of government jobs and hiring practices. Any of us who have spent time in our national parks and other facilities can tell you that the vast majority of the employees there are pretty dedicated to their work and that the monetary waste today is not great. Tightening federal budgets over the years have removed the vast majority of waste from most agencies. But vendors are being used for many of the services because the profit driven organization has always been more efficient than government. Even so, parks use a great number of seasonal employees who receive no benefits, volunteers who cost almost nothing, and most have "friends groups" that raise funds and carry out projects inside of the park at no or little cost to the tax paying public.

 

There are inefficiencies in parks, just as in all large organizations but not nearly enough to solve any funding problems. We seem to be living in a time when most of us are demanding more and more from most governmental departments while also asking for lower taxes and fees. Our parks are no different than any other agency in that we must either find ways to increase the funding or expect less from them. The record numbers of visitors mean record expenses, higher maintenance costs, more staff to provide services, more LEO needs, and a host of other increased services. If the cost per visitor exceeds the price paid for entry, increasing numbers of visitors is not a good thing for the budget.

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entry fees stay in the park but they aren't nearly enough to keep the park running and looking good. The big chuck comes from the General Fund and it isn't enough to keep up with the big items needed.

 

We volunteers save the park a lot of money because they don't have to hire folks to do what we do. Every once in a while we would see a report giving how many volunteer hours were given for the past year. It always astonished us as it was in the hundreds of thousands of hours - hours that didn't need to be on a payroll yet the jobs got done. Volunteers come up with many good ideas on how to do things differently with less time or cost and they can also suggest and add programs that they think might enhance the experience for visitors. If you have the time please consider volunteering in the parks.

Full-timed for 16 Years
Traveled 8 yr in a 2004 Newmar Dutch Star 40' Motorhome
and 8 yr in a 33' Travel Supreme 5th Wheel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entry fees stay in the park but they aren't nearly enough to keep the park running and looking good. The big chuck comes from the General Fund and it isn't enough to keep up with the big items needed.

 

We volunteers save the park a lot of money because they don't have to hire folks to do what we do. Every once in a while we would see a report giving how many volunteer hours were given for the past year. It always astonished us as it was in the hundreds of thousands of hours - hours that didn't need to be on a payroll yet the jobs got done. Volunteers come up with many good ideas on how to do things differently with less time or cost and they can also suggest and add programs that they think might enhance the experience for visitors. If you have the time please consider volunteering in the parks.

 

Excellent suggestion .

 

Some of our best times have been while volunteering . It is a win win ...

Goes around , comes around .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of our best times have bee while volunteering . It is a win win ...

We too have done a lot of this, volunteering in 9 national wildlife refuges, 5 national parks and a bunch of state and county facilities. I have long believed the old saying that you get back from things according to what you put into them. But volunteerism is a long way from making up the shortage of funding in our busiest national parks. It is important and it is also very rewarding, but I doubt that it is a long term solution.

Good travelin !...............Kirk

Full-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.
Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure

            images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqFswi_bvvojaMvanTWAI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We too have done a lot of this, volunteering in 9 national wildlife refuges, 5 national parks and a bunch of state and county facilities. I have long believed the old saying that you get back from things according to what you put into them. But volunteerism is a long way from making up the shortage of funding in our busiest national parks. It is important and it is also very rewarding, but I doubt that it is a long term solution.

 

Agreed . But , it is a valuable part of that solution .

 

The short version of that is in my signature .

Goes around , comes around .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RVers Online University

campgroundviews.com

RV Destinations

Find out more or sign up for Escapees RV'ers Bootcamp.

Advertise your product or service here.

The Rvers- Now Streaming

RVTravel.com Logo



×
×
  • Create New...