# Free NO GONDOLA IN GRAND CANYON decal



## cosurfgod

I'm all about it if they put in a play park at the bottom of the gondola. Just think of it, year round park and play with great flows, draft beers and hot out of town chicks. What's the big deal? The grand canyon is hardly wilderness. Its like a highway down there full of tool bag rafters, helicopters, class II wave trains and government rangers.


----------



## Bluefunk

DBsurfdouche you are a loser.


----------



## Randaddy

Envelope sent, thanks RRFW for helping us show our disdain for this ridiculous project!

Cosurfgod, I hope you're joking.


----------



## duct tape

Randaddy said:


> Envelope sent, thanks RRFW for helping us show our disdain for this ridiculous project!
> 
> Cosurfgod, I hope you're joking.


Agree. Although many of us disagree with some other discussions here recently, I can't imagine anyone who loves rivers, or the Canyon, liking this stupid idea.

Envelope sent.

I think cogod's post was tongue in cheek. I think...


----------



## mach3

Sorry, but you can't tell the Natives what to do with their land. I know i would love to play some slots on that hike.


----------



## GC Guide

Mach3, A bit of research will tell you this is anything but the will of the Navajo people. This is not a Navajo development. It is being pushed by regular old developer white guys for the most part.

Do you care if they have made NO provisions for dealing with sewage in the plan? They have NOT!


----------



## 2tomcat2

Done and done.


----------



## mach3

*gondi*

Sewage?!? I thought they would have groovers at the bottom for the lazy tourists and then just take them up the lift at the end of the day.


----------



## bigben

envelope sent!! 
tom- thanks for this, and all that you do for the canyon!!

as for mach3 and cosurfgod... 
this is a hyper sensitive issue for lots of people. if all you have to offer is the typical buzz d-baggery and lame sarcasm, you might wanna take it elsewhere. it makes you look way worse than any of the typical buzz bs we're all used to.
and if you really don't care about this issue, you should go down there someday, and try to imagine the impact this gondola would have on such an amazing place.
just sayin...


----------



## mach3

*ok, that's too bad*

I have been there. Shitty place for a Return Terminal and fat 'mericans too lazy to hike in. (Lift Maint joke)
I can imagine the impact it will have if the plan goes through.
I can't do anything about that property, or what the natives want to do with it to make money since we gave them taxes.
The GC was messed up years ago with the dam white men. 
The whole planet will soon enough be messed up from Human destruction.
I am going to Belize.

Sorry it's a sore subject, I am who I am. 
I want more green eggs and Ham.
I am going to post what I want to post.
Please don't burn my toast.

IDGAF

Just please don't vote for that Hillary.


----------



## Randaddy

Just got my sticker! I'm off to put it on a cop car!


----------



## rivervibe

Thanks Tom! Sent!

This project is ridiculous and everyone knows it. Any local support is propaganda drummed up by the developers.


----------



## 2tomcat2

Sticker on truck, thanks Tom!


----------



## mikepart

I am sympathetic to the lack of economic development in that part of the reservation. I also support the sovereignty of native American Lands, but it is still absolutely appropriate to voice your opinion against this development. No matter what side of a border you may live on, we are all part of a community. If the Navajo Nation government sees that there is wide spread opposition to this project from within and from outside of their tribe, they just may feel that it is in their best interests to rethink it.

If it were a matter of the US or Arizona government unilaterally violating the Navajos' sovereignty and stopping this project, I might feel different. I should also point out that there are many aspects to this issue such as the Navajo Hopi land dispute and the intricacies of laws concerning tribal sovereignty that I do not understand. In general, things are rarely black and white when you look at them close enough. 

Either way, the tram would be a tactless assault on a beautiful place that is considered sacred to many people (both native and non-native).


----------



## mattman

Seems to me that a part of planet that has been hear way longer than both the white man's 
and Navajo's cultures combined, ought to have some right not to be dessicrated for the personal gain of part of a generation.
If you look at the history of large projects such as glen canyon damn, and chernoble, for instance, a select few reaped the financial profits, while minimal gains were reaped by the workers. Human lives were lost, and severe damage was done to what was there before the grand project.
I have no disrespect for the natives of this land, there culture was first, come to think of it, i doubt there ancestors would approve either, and history's pattern is unlikely to change, another awesome part of the world tarnished for future generations, so a few people get rich.
Guess i'm with George Washinton Hayduke on this one.


----------



## GPP33

If the Grand Canyon is such an amazing place why wouldn't we want to make it accessable to everyone? There's plenty of fellow Americans who due to time, age, ability, disability, physical fitness or lack of adventure in their younger years who can't access the depths of the canyon by either boat or foot. Would you rather they take a loud fossil fuel burning bird down there or a quiet, electric tram isolated to one area which for the most part will have an impact no more than a couple of buildings and a steel cable which you will probably never see? 

This is part devils advocate and part parent of an autistic kid who will probably never be able to hike or swim well enough to reach the bottom by either of the means the opponents of this proposition feel are acceptable. Think outside of your bubble and try not to be to egocentric.


----------



## mattman

Trying not to be inside a bubble, or egocentric. Would say i do care about fellow americans with disabilities. I believe if spending time in a place like the Grand canyon is important to you, than you will have priorities, and make the time. Many people have Run the canyon into there 70's and eighties. There are commercial outfitters that cary people with no ability into the Grand canyon. I do live close to an amazing organization called the National Sports Center for the Disabled, they are able to help many people with disabilities enjoy things such as skiing, white water rafting, and rock climbing, though i am not sure if they have taken anyone down the grand canyon. I have taken quadraplegics and people in there 70's down the Royal gorge when i was a commercial guide. I would point out that the first person to run the grand canyon was missing his arm and over came huge hardship with a lot of risk to do so. I have limited sympathy for those without physical fitness,(they should make an effort and go excersize) except those suffering from a medical condition(i have friends with horrible ones). Coming to the end of your life only to realize that you did not live it, is about the worst thing i can imagine.
And no, I do not think aircraft should be in the Grand canyon either.
I have built chairlifts, they are cool machines, but i feel that there should be some amount of personal effort involved, even if it means you have a handy cap, and need some help from others. People having everything done for them is kinda an insult to the human spirit. 
I do care about wilderness, and would like to see some of it stick around, just feel like our species has built to much stuff, and we need to try and tone it down, especialy places that we have decided to set aside, like our national parks.
Thank you for playing the devils advocate. I am so sorry that your child has autissim,I wish your family the best, and hope that you are able to survive and thrive, and find happiness in spite of affliction.

Have a good sumer of boating GPP33, I wish you the best.


----------



## Randaddy

GPP33 said:


> If the Grand Canyon is such an amazing place why wouldn't we want to make it accessable to everyone? There's plenty of fellow Americans who due to time, age, ability, disability, physical fitness or lack of adventure in their younger years who can't access the depths of the canyon by either boat or foot. Would you rather they take a loud fossil fuel burning bird down there or a quiet, electric tram isolated to one area which for the most part will have an impact no more than a couple of buildings and a steel cable which you will probably never see?
> 
> This is part devils advocate and part parent of an autistic kid who will probably never be able to hike or swim well enough to reach the bottom by either of the means the opponents of this proposition feel are acceptable. Think outside of your bubble and try not to be to egocentric.


Because you can't make every place accessible to everyone. I'm not an astronaut, I'm dyslexic and bad at math. I don't get to stand on the moon - and I'm not asking for a tram to get me there. Everyone has a different experience and sometimes the most able get the best adventures.


----------



## rivervibe

Well said mattman.


----------



## GPP33

mattman said:


> Trying not to be inside a bubble, or egocentric. Would say i do care about fellow americans with disabilities. I believe if spending time in a place like the Grand canyon is important to you, than you will have priorities, and make the time. Many people have Run the canyon into there 70's and eighties. There are commercial outfitters that cary people with no ability into the Grand canyon. I do live close to an amazing organization called the National Sports Center for the Disabled, they are able to help many people with disabilities enjoy things such as skiing, white water rafting, and rock climbing, though i am not sure if they have taken anyone down the grand canyon. I have taken quadraplegics and people in there 70's down the Royal gorge when i was a commercial guide. I would point out that the first person to run the grand canyon was missing his arm and over came huge hardship with a lot of risk to do so. I have limited sympathy for those without physical fitness,(they should make an effort and go excersize) except those suffering from a medical condition(i have friends with horrible ones). Coming to the end of your life only to realize that you did not live it, is about the worst thing i can imagine.
> And no, I do not think aircraft should be in the Grand canyon either.
> I have built chairlifts, they are cool machines, but i feel that there should be some amount of personal effort involved, even if it means you have a handy cap, and need some help from others. People having everything done for them is kinda an insult to the human spirit.
> I do care about wilderness, and would like to see some of it stick around, just feel like our species has built to much stuff, and we need to try and tone it down, especialy places that we have decided to set aside, like our national parks.
> Thank you for playing the devils advocate. I am so sorry that your child has autissim,I wish your family the best, and hope that you are able to survive and thrive, and find happiness in spite of affliction.
> 
> Have a good sumer of boating GPP33, I wish you the best.


Thank you for the kind words. My daughter will no doubt live a more experienced life than most typical kids. Unfortunately the services of the organizations you listed don't come cheap, In order for the family of disabled kids to utilize those services they need to (a) have the financial means and (b) deem the experience worth the invesemt. I'm getting off topic with this thread but the "if they can't do it under human power" sediment that so often comes up in these conversations is no doubt a justification most people who oppose this tram subscribe to. This is in no way directed at you mattman nor am I saying a tram should be installed. To be honest I don't know squat about this project so I don't have an opinion either way yet. 

Here's a few people in my little circle that this attitude excludes though:

The guy I sat next to on the plane today. Two prosthetic legs and a service dog. I don't know much about his life but I do know he couldn't hike it and I know most people who can't swim wouldn't risk their lives to boat it. He is a decorated vet. 

A coworkers wife who has MS, paralized from the waist down and probably better than 50% paralized from the waist up. Mentally there but can't physically do it. I know the financial strain this has put on thier family has ruled out any possibility to utilize those special services.

A good fried who had scoliosis so bad as a kid that she now sports a metal rod in place of her lower spine. Hiking it is out of the question as is sitting long enough to boat it. They do ok financially but even if she could boat it getting the time off work and the money together is virtually out of the question. 

Then there's the kids who's parents don't instill the value of physical fitness to enjoy nature. I'm amazed how many of my kids friends don't ski and we live in Colorado. The number who boat are even fewer. Sure, some hike, but do day hikes in the local open space really compare to the GC? Should those kids be penalized? Could an experience like a tram ride to the bottom of the CG open thier minds to what else exists and motivate them to break the ways of thier parents and instill a new set of values in their kids? 

You mentioned elderly people floating it but let's be real. How many 80 year olds are really up to it? 

I'm not saying we build roads and trams to everything worth seeing but we need to strike a balance and the elitest attitude of "enjoy it my way or no way" attitude needs to end.


----------



## restrac2000

I think the "less abled" argument is always a difficult card to justify and/or counter. Here are a few things to keep in mind with the context here:

1) This is a for profit organization that has expressed no interest in that being the priority, emphasis or impetus. This is about money, which conflicts with your statements about affordability, etc. The Skywalk is roughly $85 and does not require the same type of transportation infrastructure this system will need to work. It will be expensive, not cheap for the target audience.

2) There are already a ton of opportunities along the rim of the Grand Canyon for access for those less abled. 

3) There are existing programs and companies working to expand opportunities for the under-served disability population, such as AZRA in the Grand or SPLORE in other national parks. 

There is no easy answer or solution when it comes to finding balance in such coveted locations. That said, the Grand Canyon already caters to a wide range of stakeholders. But balance also requires accepting self-limiting compromises that recognize the context of place and history. Helicopters, planes, mules, bridges and paved routes exist through the park to provide life changing experiences to a wide range of abilities. When is enough enough? The vast majority of visitors never get beyond the rim and yet continue to rank it as one of the "once in a lifetime" experience of their lives. 

I also contest the idea that a tram would barely alter the Grand Canyon experience. Few rivers remain in the world where individuals can experience a roadless and limited impact like the Grand provides. For 220 miles we only encounter one major area of development, Phantom Ranch. That is a rare privilege worth fighting for as I have yet find a place where I can spend 2-4 weeks without seeing concentrations of other people. 

History shows that when greedy developers get ahold of land with limited oversight/regulation they forever alter the place and experience. Just look at Grand Canyon West. Some people are able to overlook the non-stop helicopters and pontoon tours but I can't; it ruins an immersed experience like no other location provides. 

Bisecting the Colorado River with yet another development is unacceptable. Enough compromise has already been made by human-powered recreationist in this regard. I have argued against wilderness designation, supported the historical use of motorized traffic along the river corridor, and even comes to terms with the incessant sounds of planes at several key locations along the river. But a Tram at the LCR confluence? Enough is enough and I gladly stand along side the tribal members fighting the outside development (as some can contest I was hesitant to make such statements not too long ago).

All in all I think the Park Service already does a fair job of managing their resources for various stakeholders including disabled visitors (which is why the developer has gone to tribal land). As someone who rowed the Grand Canyon less than 9 months after I permanently lost 60% of my peripheral vision (the most noticeable of a constellation of symptoms yet to be fully diagnosed) I can say there is immense benefit to leaving places like the Colorado River as they are. I spent 28 days regaining a confidence that has been fleeting since that fateful spring in 2009 when my health problems started. The physical, emotional and spiritual transformations that have come from immersing oneself in an environment that does not change based upon personal ability have always been the lasting memories in my life.

Given human ingenuity I think we can continue to get people who desire to be somewhere but have disabilities into such places without altering the environment (both physical and social) in such radical ways. The Tram is not a fair compromise in that regard.

Phillip


----------



## sweetwater

*More than one*

Tom, if we put some money in the envelope can we get more than one sticker? 

Thanks for your work and organization.


----------



## climber-420

GPP33 said:


> If the Grand Canyon is such an amazing place why wouldn't we want to make it accessable to everyone? There's plenty of fellow Americans who due to time, age, ability, disability, physical fitness or lack of adventure in their younger years who can't access the depths of the canyon by either boat or foot. Would you rather they take a loud fossil fuel burning bird down there or a quiet, electric tram isolated to one area which for the most part will have an impact no more than a couple of buildings and a steel cable which you will probably never see?
> 
> This is part devils advocate and part parent of an autistic kid who will probably never be able to hike or swim well enough to reach the bottom by either of the means the opponents of this proposition feel are acceptable. Think outside of your bubble and try not to be to egocentric.


 What about Mt. Everest? It's such an amazing place, why wouldn't you want to make it accessible to everyone? 
There's plenty of fellow Americans who due to time, age, ability, disability, physical fitness or lack of adventure in their younger years who can't access the heights of the mtn by foot.


----------



## shredder-scott

I want the gonola to open...who sells an open the grand to gonola sticke ?

Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board ! 

scott


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> I want the gonola to open...who sells an open the grand to gonola sticke ?
> 
> Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board !
> 
> scott


Why the change of heart on productive dialog? 

Phillip


----------



## Randaddy

shredder-scott said:


> who sells an open the grand to gonola sticke ?


Here you go:


----------



## GCHiker4887

*Why is The Confluence Sacred?*

I, like a lot of you all, oppose the Escalade Development at the Confluence. It would be easy to say it is about a bunch of rich, white guys from Scottsdale trying to cash in (it is) similar to how the Hualapai and David Jin (RIP) have managed to out at GC West. Have you guys been out west, or does everyone take out at Diamond? Western GC is beautiful. It really is, but then you get to Quartermaster and have an all-day-long invasion of helicopters. Jet boats. The sacred toilet seat in the sky. Do not forget the fact that the Hulapai tried to eminent domain the skywalk. They spent years in court with Jin. They spent millions of dollars. The Confluence Partners have included a 'no eminent domain' clause in their proposed legislation, but if they try to build, they will also spend millions in court. Or actually, the Navajo will. The agreement requires the tribe to defend the project. It also requires the Navajo to certifiably say that no other group or tribe has any rights to the land, physically or spiritually. The will also ban vendors on the road in from selling native goods. There is a non-compete clause as well. This project is banking on the Asian & Chinese tourist dollars, just like GC West does. That's the customer. It is not some poor American who is disabled, a vet, incapable or too lazy to hike down. That's what they want you to think. That's not their customer. The ride will be too expensive to most Americans. Kind of like Commercial GC trips are out of reach for a lot of Americans based on the cost ($400-$500/day).

Regardless of why I feel this is the worst idea and biggest threat facing the GC right now, I wanted to understand what makes the Confluence so special. I have been here 4 times now. I hiked here from the South Rim, and I have stopped or passed by on 3 river trips. It's just another side canyon, right? I don't believe so. 

I have spoken with the Save the Confluence folks. This place is SACRED! I didn't really understand at first. The Hopi believe the place of emergence is the Sipapu. They have voiced their opposition. I had thought the Navajo held it close because it was traditional lands. What I didn't understand is what they believe happens at the Confluence. We all have different beliefs of what happens when we die. Heaven and Hell and all of that. What the Navajos believe that I have spoken with is that when they die, their spirits move on to live at the Confluence. That they guard and protect the place. Their grandparents and great grand parents spirits are there right now....

I stand with the families in opposition to the Escalade. I stand with the other Pueblos in opposition to the Escalade. Dooda Tram!


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> Why the change of heart on productive dialog?
> 
> Phillip


Hey phillip

I am all for productive fact, sciemce base dialog...

Fact.....I am in favor of the gondola

Fact....this board is populated by both balanced folks, but there are lot of hate filled egotistical hypocrists on this board as well.

it is private land....for profit is a basic America outlook....it all good when lines the hypocrite pockets with $ .....but bad, if it interferes with their fun...on land that belong to another !

Yeah right....hypocrisy at it finest.


Scott


----------



## duct tape

Got my sticker over the weekend and trying to decide the best spot. So many choices - truck window, favorite rocket box,... Need about 5 more.

Good stuff GC Hiker. It is a special place and tram is a stupid idea.


----------



## Maxident




----------



## GC Guide

Hey Scott,
Not hating, just wondering. What type of


> sciemce base dialog...


 would you use to describe the impacts this development will have not only in the vicinity of the project but also downstream?


----------



## richp

Hi,

The legal issues here are numerous and complex. Among them are:

1. Where is the actual boundary between tribal land and GC National Park?

2. How will water rights concerns be resolved, since there is essentially no surface water there, and drilling wells may likely impact seeps and springs within the Park?

3. How are Hopi tribal interests (which are uniformly against the project and appear by treaty to have weight with regard to land use in this area) resolved?

4. Have ongoing doubts about the legality of Navajo tribal votes (some of which approved and others disapproved of the project) on the matter been satisfactorily resolved?

5. What night-time light issues may emerge, as the site is clearly visible from Desert View, within the GCNP?

6. Will calmer heads prevail within the tribe about possibly inflated use projections, distorted revenue distribution, and a variety of nitty-gritty contract issues.

As things stand today, this is how I see it:

1. There is a very high probability the Park Service and/or Hopi tribe would tie this up in court for years.

2. Whatever the outcome of that litigation, I doubt a tramway will ever be constructed to the bottom, since the Park's boundary claim seems to be solid up to 1/4 mile from the river, and the Superintendent has come out in firm opposition. 

3. Development on the rim itself seemingly would require huge amounts of water -- yet another likely vector for the Park to use as basis for litigation.

4. Ongoing changes in Navaho leadership may also move the momentum in the direction of abandoning the project.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey phillip
> 
> I am all for productive fact, sciemce base dialog...
> 
> Fact.....I am in favor of the gondola
> 
> Fact....this board is populated by both balanced folks, but there are lot of hate filled egotistical hypocrists on this board as well.
> 
> it is private land....for profit is a basic America outlook....it all good when lines the hypocrite pockets with $ .....but bad, if it interferes with their fun...on land that belong to another !
> 
> Yeah right....hypocrisy at it finest.
> 
> 
> Scott


Calling out a hypocritical idea is different than calling those who oppose your viewpoints hypocrites. You chose the route of insulting those who disagree. You are correct that others on this forum engage in a type of communication that is not productive to conversation. But you are the one who has challenged others in the past to rise above that so the expectations are higher for you.

Tribal Land is not "private land" in any American classical sense. It is more of a collective space. As I understand it reservation land is its own distinct definition somewhere in the vast realm between what we call private and public.

Tribal Land is also not American land and is not defined by our definitions or histories. "For profit" is not necessarily the framework that the tribe is mandated to live by, as many of its members are exposing in their resistance.

This is also a private American enterprise seeking to develop land that is not their own. They know the park surrounding it is off limits and more regulated so they forced a deal with a economically vulnerable third party, the tribe. And ironically they are forcing the tribe to front a significant part of the money for the development.

Many of us would likely be in a different philosophical location if this was a development founded within and by tribal members. Its not. Instead its a modern development that plays into classic issues of colonialism and all the negatives associated with it. Six months ago I was unwilling to take a stand against the project and was very much in the "more power to them" camp but it has become obvious my understanding was limited and skewed. This is at its heart a venture capitalist scheme to take advantage of a population marginalized for the last several decades (specifically by the Bennet Freeze, but marginalized much longer). The published numbers show the Navajo will only receive between 8-18% of the profits. 

And from the hypocrisy standpoint....some of us have come to terms with loss of access that harms our own preferred endeavors even within the Grand Canyon. Several years ago they closed Deer Creek Canyon to canyoneering because of its sacredness. Compromise requires us to accept losses of our own.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> Calling out a hypocritical idea is different than calling those who oppose your viewpoints hypocrites. You chose the route of insulting those who disagree. You are correct that others on this forum engage in a type of communication that is not productive to conversation. But you are the one who has challenged others in the past to rise above that so the expectations are higher for you.
> 
> ...,will only receive between 8-18% of the profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip


Hey phillip

1....I called no one individual here a hypocrite. ..I simply said this board has a lot of them....I stand by that.....As I stand by my view that to oppose this project is hypocrisy at its finest.....you don't want this project....figure out a way to replace the lost $ to tribe for using THEIR land the way they want ! .....

2...you are correct I have been subjected to numerous insults, from hypocrites.,who are unable to engage in a respecctful conversation. 

3...8 or 80 % of the profits is more than get now ! .....it is THEIR land,,,if this how they want to mangement of it,,,that is their not others choice.....if they fail to hire good lawyers and consulants to protect themselfs....that is their fault !

So as I stated I am for this project....there are many reasons I support this project. ....I have not felt the need to express all the reasons....

But again I have cast no direct insults at any specific individual in this thread....I have only state a fact regarding the population of the buzz

you are one of the few that engages in a exchange of views ...your mind seems open..,,in your post you expressed how additional data influenceed your thoughts on this matter, and you shared that data..,,thank you for doing that....but that data did not change my postion.

paddle on

scott


----------



## BrianK

Hey Scott, why are you for this project? Beyond the right they may or may not have to build what they want on their land - what makes you in favor of this development? You say you have a lot of reasons, and I'm honestly curious what they are.


----------



## Maxident

shredder-scott said:


> Hey phillip
> 
> 1....I called no one individual here a hypocrite. ..I simply said this board has a lot of them....I stand by that.....As I stand by my view that to oppose this project is hypocrisy at its finest.....you don't want this project....figure out a way to replace the lost $ to tribe for using THEIR land the way they want ! .....
> 
> 2...you are correct I have been subjected to numerous insults, from hypocrites.,who are unable to engage in a respecctful conversation.
> 
> 3...8 or 80 % of the profits is more than get now ! .....it is THEIR land,,,if this how they want to mangement of it,,,that is their not others choice.....if they fail to hire good lawyers and consulants to protect themselfs....that is their fault !
> 
> So as I stated I am for this project....there are many reasons I support this project. ....I have not felt the need to express all the reasons....
> 
> But again I have cast no direct insults at any specific individual in this thread....I have only state a fact regarding the population of the buzz
> 
> you are one of the few that engages in a exchange of views ...your mind seems open..,,in your post you expressed how additional data influenceed your thoughts on this matter, and you shared that data..,,thank you for doing that....but that data did not change my postion.
> 
> paddle on
> 
> scott



To oppose this is hypocrisy at it's finest? I fail to see the logic behind that. I oppose it and I don't see how that hypocritical. If you can elaborate a little more, I'd appreciate it.

Not every money making idea is a good idea. Yes, the Navajo are hurting. But there are other options. Off the top of my head- If they increased the permit fees to $200 or the entrance fees to whatever and the extra money went to the tribes, I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd advocate for it.

You're right, if that is what they want to do with their land, okay. But, it's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion. If your neighbor was blaring music (in their house) or neglecting their yard (on their side of the fence), depreciating the your living experience you'd voice yours too.

I'd be curious to know what your other "many reasons" are -perhaps too controversial for this thread? or embarrassing? Enlighten me.

Development is not progress. We need to keep the Wilderness wild. Nobody covets over the Moab daily like they do Ruby/Horse thief (even though it's absolutely beautiful). Nobody gets as excited to do the Lochsa like they do the Selway. Why? Development. It's not a wilderness run. Civilization needs an escape. We can't develop every piece of dirt. And every piece of dirt doesn't need to be accessed by the hordes.


----------



## shredder-scott

Hey fellow buzzards

Some of you have expressed curiosity as to greater detail on my support for the project. 

For me it is really boils down to private rights VS public-gov rights.

In this case, I support private property rights, I do see a public good argument, but find that argument to be weak and hypocrital in this case.

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## GC Guide

Scott,



> I support private property rights


I will contend as do many other folks on this forum that Tribal Land is NOT Private Property. 

Ergo, your argument would be invalid. 

If you have a reasonable argument for why the Navajo Nation should be considered private land, I am all ears!


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey fellow buzzards
> 
> Some of you have expressed curiosity as to greater detail on my support for the project.
> 
> For me it is really boils down to private rights VS public-gov rights.
> 
> In this case, I support private property rights, I do see a public good argument, but find that argument to be weak and hypocrital in this case.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


I think you might be using the wrong word as hypocrisy means acting inconsistently with stated values or morals. In this case the people you are calling hypocrites are firmly stating that their values are inconsistent with the project and are therefor acting accordingly. Having world views different than you assumptions does not make them hypocrites.

You also conflate this issue with classic private vs public rights, which this is not. This is not "American" land in the classic sense(and I would oppose extending the GCNP or any national monument unless offered by a vast majority of the tribal members). Tribes operate under a very different definition than what you describe, i.e. "domestic dependent nations". This grants them a governance relationship equivalent to that between state and federal powers. Sadly though Indian Lands are largely considered to be held in trust by the federal government which undermines your argument. Agencies and policy have largely been limiting the power of the federal government in regards to reservations for the last few decades but that is still the default by and large. 

I hate to say but the generic way in which you summarize the issue exposes a inaccurate understanding of the complexity inherent to the planned development. It comes across more as ideological talking points instead of a nuanced conclusion that deals with the social, political and historical variables that are inherent to the issue. 

You can obviously land wherever you want to on the subject but the facts are a lot more complicated than you state. Rich P's points are a good place to investigate if interested.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

GC Guide said:


> Scott,
> 
> 
> 
> I will contend as do many other folks on this forum that Tribal Land is NOT Private Property.
> 
> Ergo, your argument would be invalid.
> 
> If you have a reasonable argument for why the Navajo Nation should be considered private land, I am all ears!


I will contend that tribal land is a type of private , ergo my argument is very vaild 

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## GC Guide

In your own mind it is valid Scott! That I agree with!


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> I think you might be using the wrong word as hypocrisy means acting inconsistently with stated values or morals. In this case the people you are calling hypocrites are firmly stating that their values are inconsistent with the project and are therefor acting accordingly. Having world views different than you assumptions does not make them hypocrites.
> 
> Phillip


Hey Phillip

I agree with your definition of hypocrisy. 

I feel that those opposed to project, would quickly support it, IF it was a benifit to them......If this project allowed boaters acess to river, where there was no other convient entry ....they would be all for it..... I like the idea of gonola ride down to the bottom of the canyon so I and others can enjoy it in OUR way to be a postive one with minimal environmental impact......I find the idea that only acceptable ways to experience the grand are in a raft, or one foot...to be egotistical and hypocrital. 

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott

GC Guide said:


> In your own mind it is valid Scott! That I agree with!


...I guess your argument is a communal ownership is not a type of private ownership.....lots of condo owners who would dissagree with you

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## richp

Hi Shredder-Scott,

In response to you mentioning the property interests of the tribe, it's not a "pure" public/private problem, for a number of reasons. 

First, as a sovereign nation, the Navajo have entered into agreements with other sovereign nations -- the Hopi Nation and the US government. Those agreements provide a framework for land use decisions that is distinctly different from the usual public/private discussion.

Second, this is hard to frame as a typical public/private land use situation for another reason. The vast remote area involved is essentially a commons -- used by members of the local tribal chapter, but held by the tribe itself. Insofar as I understand it, the individuals who graze cattle and go there to worship are not land owners in the conventional sense.

Third, from a religious rights standpoint, the area is not exclusively sacred to Navajo -- the Hopi have a long-established religious attachment to the Confluence that interacts with the above agreements. Whether you consider their interests public or private, they exist as part of the equation to be solved.

Fourth, the Navajo tribe's own internal processes govern what can be done on lands with long-established traditional uses, as is the case here. The tribal chapters involved have held votes on how the land is to be used, and there was considerable division within those local tribal units on whether this project should go forward. 

Fifth, someone else mentioned the Bennett Freeze -- a lengthy time period in which the all-knowing (sarcasm intended) Federal government (through the Department of Interior) imposed restrictions on this area that created immense hardships on local members of the tribe. The argument that this new development would help offset the adverse impact of the Freeze is out there for evaluation. But that evaluation should include a hard look by the tribe into the figures the developers are projecting. And of course none of those economic considerations would easily overcome the other problems inherent in the situation.

As a final comment, Grand Canyon Trust and other organizations are deeply involved in tracking this situation. But this situation is at a stage where it is primarily a tribal matter; it seems prudent for non-tribal folks who also oppose it to be careful not to be too intrusive. The time may come when individuals and organizations outside the tribe (such as the NPS) become visibly active. But consider that for now, high profile "white man" opposition to the project could provide ammunition to those within the tribe who are sensitive about the principle of tribal self-determination on the issue. Just a thought....

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey Phillip
> 
> I agree with your definition of hypocrisy.
> 
> I feel that those opposed to project, would quickly support it, IF it was a benifit to them......If this project allowed boaters acess to river, where there was no other convient entry ....they would be all for it..... I like the idea of gonola ride down to the bottom of the canyon so I and others can enjoy it in OUR way to be a postive one with minimal environmental impact......I find the idea that only acceptable ways to experience the grand are in a raft, or one foot...to be egotistical and hypocrital.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


Why resort to assumptions and gross stereotypes to support your opinion? You do know the OP here is one of the most ardent supporters of wilderness and has consistently tried to limit those within the rafting community from any access to the river corridor, correct? You do also realize this is opposed by groups who support river access despite the fact that a gondola ride at the confluence would allow more people to float the LCR without the usual GC permit or hideous hike out, correct?

The Grand Canyon is not limited in the fashion you state. Motorized river trips exist; mules take users down the canyon every day; commercial groups innovate to push, pull and aid less abled people along trails and the river every year; helicopters and airplanes takeoff regularly for scenic flights; pontoons and helicopters outnumber raft trips in the western grand canyon substantially; etc. 

You undermine your own argument when you resort to gross generalizations that can easily be proven wrong. 

And your conclusion that tribal land is "private land" is easily verified and proven wrong. Its a very unique legal and political holding that transcends your statements. 

Phillip


----------



## swimteam101

shredder-scott said:


> Hey Phillip
> 
> I agree with your definition of hypocrisy.
> 
> I feel that those opposed to project, would quickly support it, IF it was a benifit to them......If this project allowed boaters acess to river, where there was no other convient entry ....they would be all for it..... I like the idea of gonola ride down to the bottom of the canyon so I and others can enjoy it in OUR way to be a postive one with minimal environmental impact......I find the idea that only acceptable ways to experience the grand are in a raft, or one foot...to be egotistical and hypocrital.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


Scott,
I'm sure the Grand Canyon Gondy would provide some access for river runners and passenger exchanges but I still don't see wide spread support for it among river users. How is your life going ? When I find myself being a HATER I try to internalize and I normally spot the problem quickly. Don't be to hard on yourself the first time. On some unrelated notes Steamboat ski area closed today(I feel it was a mercy killing) and does anyone know is it Twot or Twat Waffle ?


----------



## restrac2000

richp said:


> Hi Shredder-Scott,
> 
> As a final comment, Grand Canyon Trust and other organizations are deeply involved in tracking this situation. But this situation is at a stage where it is primarily a tribal matter; it seems prudent for non-tribal folks who also oppose it to be careful not to be too intrusive. The time may come when individuals and organizations outside the tribe (such as the NPS) become visibly active. But consider that for now, high profile "white man" opposition to the project could provide ammunition to those within the tribe who are sensitive about the principle of tribal self-determination on the issue. Just a thought....
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


This has been the framework that defines my current struggle. I still don't know how to proceed with my opposition given the historical issues at play. Self-determination is paramount to the issue and why I vocalized my concerns last summer. I have altered how I view the development but I still fail to see a viable way to interact with the process without being hypocritical to my own values concerning self-determination. At this point I think its fine to discuss and share information that organizations within the tribe provide but have no interest in an outside organization intervening. 

I may not order a RRFW sticker as I do not support their mission or tactics but I do see significant value in discussing the issue. If anything the current conversation exposes how inaccurately the current narrative may be framed within the broader American population. I know I had to spend considerable time, and still do, trying to overcome ideological arguments and investigating the numerous variables at play. There is a lot more at play than embedding it within classic environmental framework tends to convey. 

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

richp said:


> Hi Shredder-Scott,
> 
> In response to you mentioning the property interests of the tribe
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Phillips


Hi Rich

I feel the tribe has a ethical duty to consider how their use of their property effects others.

The tribe has other ethical duties to its, current, past and future members it should also consider..,opposing and pro views need to be prsented in an open and fair manner.....but it is there choice.....

Quite simply I feel that a gondola ride in gc, to a postive one, with more benifits than negatives.

So me it is like this.

1....Firist and formost this is a private land issue to me....If the owners want to build it....that is their privilege......I see no unreasonable harm to others in this use.

2....On a personal level I find the concept of a gondola into the grand appealing. It is clearly argumentative as to the benfits vs negs ratio.....but for me I find more benfits than negs.

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## richp

Hi Phillip,

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution on this subject.

There are other related spin-off concerns, as well.

For instance, not long ago, there was an idea floated about the tribe wanting to run one day motorized trips from Lees Ferry to the LCR. (Sixty one miles is quite doable under full power, even with a lunch stop, and the river management plan sort of hinted at the Park granting a tribal river concession in addition to the other commercial companies). Not much has been heard of this lately. However, a lot of folks recoiled from the idea of fast-moving snouts gunning past other trips on a more normal pace. I still recoil from it....

This proposed gondola would be the perfect companion to that scheme. Race down the river to the LCR, take the gondola up to the rim, and fly fixed wing back to Vegas in time for the evening show at the casino. Instead of having to chopper both people and boats up from the Confluence, the outfitter can save by airlifting just the boats to trailers waiting on the rim.

As I have said before, there are many complex aspects to this proposed project. My personal view is that it will never come to fruition because the economic model won't look attractive enough, once its clear the gondola will never be permitted on Park land. Which I fervently hope will be the case...

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## richp

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the clarification. Admittedly it's not an easy issue, but here are a couple of additional points.

Among the Navajo, the chapters involved have debated this in great detail. There is a traditional segment that wants to honor the sacred values and leave the area undeveloped. There is a development-oriented group that buys into the representation of the developers about economic benefits. It's not like there has been an attempt to ram things through at the local level without discussion. And the votes have been contentious.

Among the Hopi, who also have a spiritual and legal interest in the Confluence, there is essentially no support for the project at all.

Go here for one side of the issue Save the Confluence Home - Save the Confluence

Go here for the other Grand Canyon Escalade

I do want to emphasize though, that the history of the boundary issue suggests that the Park controls the first quarter mile of the canyon from the river. That alone means that the gondola project dies if the Park opposes it -- which it does at present. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## shredder-scott

richp said:


> Hi Scott,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Admittedly it's not an easy issue, but here are a couple of additional
> 
> I do want to emphasize though, that the history of the boundary issue suggests that the Park controls the first quarter mile of the canyon from the river. That alone means that the gondola project dies if the Park opposes it -- which it does at present.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Hi Rich

Ownership of the land ....if it is not their land....then they can not use it without permission or aquirring it.

Where the ownership line should be drawn....my view.....when in doubt between fed and indian ownership.....benfit of the doubt goes to indian ownership.

If there was another location in the gc, where the gondolas impact on other users would be lessen. ....then perhaps a land swap deal could occure

Wiith out the benfit of having studied historical ownership document in detail.....I am inclined to favor the Indians understanding of ownership not the fed postion.

So,..if it is their land.....I support their right to build it, I see no unreasonable harm in the project to others.


paddle on


scott


----------



## richp

Hi Scott,

That's my point. Everything seems to point to the fact that the tribe doesn't own the land at the bottom of the Canyon. And if you don't own the land where the gondola terminus has to be, you can't do the key (and most contentious) part of the project. By the way, it wouldn't just be a gondola transfer station -- it would include a boardwalk and restaurant right at river edge. 

Now yes, if the tribe owns the land on the rim (which doesn't seem to be in doubt) then they could build a resort complex up on top. If -- and this is a big if -- they can resolve issues over the local chapter objections, and water rights, and the Hopi legalities, and the air traffic control corridor allocations, and the light pollution infringements, and so forth. 

You get the picture. It's not a simple property line issue -- there are numerous entanglements that entail resolving multiple complex issues between three sovereign nations and various Federal agencies. That's in addition to the concerns of individuals like you and me, and organizations like GC Trust, RRFW, GCPBA, and others.

If you want to learn more and study the ownership issue in detail, Jeff Ingram has done great work over the years on GC river issues. His blog here Celebrating the Grand Canyon: NAVAJO provides an excellent resource about the boundary issue.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> Why resort to assumptions and gross stereotypes to support your opinion? You do know the OP here is one of the most ardent supporters of wilderness and has consistently tried to limit those within the rafting community from any access to the river corridor, correct? You do also realize this is opposed by groups who support river access despite the fact that a gondola ride at the confluence would allow more people to float the LCR without the usual GC permit or hideous hike out, correct?
> 
> The Grand Canyon is not limited in the fashion you state. Motorized river trips exist; mules take users down the canyon every day; commercial groups innovate to push, pull and aid less abled people along trails and the river every year; helicopters and airplanes takeoff regularly for scenic flights; pontoons and helicopters outnumber raft trips in the western grand canyon substantially; etc.
> 
> You undermine your own argument when you resort to gross generalizations that can easily be proven wrong.
> 
> And your conclusion that tribal land is "private land" is easily verified and proven wrong. Its a very unique legal and political holding that transcends your statements.
> 
> Phillip


Hi Phlip

I was unaware of those details regarding the op...thank you for enlightening me. 

It has been my personal experience that most folks who hold such a rigid idiological view as you describe ....are hypocrites.

I am aware of the special status that tribes and tribal land have....to me it is still just a subtype of private land ownership.

I agree there are many ways to acess the grand.....however to make vertical trip into and out of the grand to see up close the changes in the canyon wall are few, and limited to the realtivly fit folks.....a gondola provides a way to experence to vertical grander in unique way to a broader user group, with minimal impact to the environment and other users.....(in my view).....and therefore is a concept I support. 

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott

richp said:


> Hi Scott,
> 
> That's my point. Everything seems to point to the fact that the tribe doesn't own the land at the bottom of the Canyon. And if you don't own the land where the gondola terminus has to be, you can't do the key (and most contentious) part of the project. By the way, it wouldn't just be a gondola transfer station -- it would include a boardwalk and restaurant right at river edge.
> 
> Now yes, if the tribe owns the land on the rim (which doesn't seem to be in doubt) then they could build a resort complex up on top. If -- and this is a big if -- they can resolve issues over the local chapter objections, and water rights, and the Hopi legalities, and the air traffic control corridor allocations, and the light pollution infringements, and so forth.
> 
> You get the picture. It's not a simple property line issue -- there are numerous entanglements that entail resolving multiple complex issues between three sovereign nations and various Federal agencies. That's in addition to the concerns of individuals like you and me, and organizations like GC Trust, RRFW, GCPBA, and others.
> 
> If you want to learn more and study the ownership issue in detail, Jeff Ingram has done great work over the years on GC river issues. His blog here Celebrating the Grand Canyon: NAVAJO provides an excellent resource about the boundary issue.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Hi Rich

I support tend to support the indian ownership postion over federal one.

It is up to indian owners to decide how to use their land.

I have no problem with the concept as you described it....I see no significant harm to other users, in fact I find the concept appealing. 

Paddle on

scott


----------



## GCHiker4887

*Boundary Issues & the 1975 Enlargement Act*

Hi Rich-
I am very glad you brought Jeff's blog into play Celebrating the Grand Canyon . I was just about to do that! Jeff is so very well versed in the boundary issue, having been with the Sierra Club when the 1975 Enlargement Act was passed, and he does a fantastic job of using the current law, the memos and intentions of the parties involved to make his case where the actual boundary is between GrCa and Navajo. It is indeed not a clear issue. I believe he asserts the boundary is 1/4 mile from the river on River Left up until the Nankoweap area, where it becomes the 'old high water mark'. Regardless, NPS has taken the position (somewhat) that the border could be the Rim. I do not know how successful this argument would be for them.

Here is what is often most overlooked when discussing the *Proposed Escalade Development: The 1975 Enlargement Act REQUIRES the Sec. of Interior to WORK with the tribe to provide a suitable development for the Eastern Rim of Grand Canyon. Not only was the intent of the Act (which added Marble Canyon and Lower GC into the Park formally) provide for incorporation of the Grand Canyon as a WHOLE, it set up some action items for the land managers (NPS, BLM, Navajo, Forest Service, etc.). What the Hualapai have done could very well be seen as a violation of the spirit of the act and The Grand Canyon as a whole. GC West is a horrible mistake that cannot be allowed to happen in Eastern GC.

So the vehicle for this. The way the Navajo could appropriately develop and interpret the East Rim of Grand Canyon needs to be explored. Not only because it is the RIGHT thing to do, but because Secretary of Interior was COMPELLED BY LAW to do so. So far DOI has dropped the ball. We the people need to hold them accountable. I truly believe (and have reason to believe this is not just an opinion), that the Navajo people would be very excited to add to their Tribal Park and create a system for adding jobs, providing revenue, etc. on their land, in their backyard, in a way that would NOT sacrifice a sacred place. I believe DOI needs to take the steps to start these talks.

The Views out on the East Rim are stunning. I would like to see a thoughtful, well-planned way for the Navajo to interpret their lands for all of us. They should be able to set up vending stations and sell their goods. They should have the ability to capture the tourism dollars same as the Hualapai, but I bet the Navajo could do it in a way that celebrates the land and Grand Canyon in the process. We already have a 'Sacred Toilet Seat', we don't need a Gondola. We need DOI to get off her ass and do her job.

Here is a link to the letter RRFW sent to SOI: https://rrfw.org/sites/default/files/documents/SecretaryJewell7-15-2014.pdf


----------



## Tom Martin

Hi all, been out for a solo backpack between 150 Mile and Tuckup on the Esplanade. Sweetwarer, like some of you, you may find more than one decal in your envelope. We just ran out today, and the Second printing of Decal's arrives tomorrow. Most folks have been including a little note if they want a few more, and they get them!

Thanks to GC Hiker for mentioning Jeff Ingram's blog. Jeff points out there is no justification for the "1/4 mile setback" idea at the Confluence (for hydropower development) as it was never defined for the lands between the LCR and Nankoweap. Besides, it was never agreed to by the Navajo for hydropower development even. 

I was sure glad to see American Rivers shout this out! Right on AR! The more groups that shout this out the better. The message is simple. White guys who want to develop the Grand Canyon at the expense of the Navajo Nation and the resource itself have a lot to answer for from all of us globally. This is not a sovereign nation issue and the organizations that have figured this out and are starting to shout it out by going after the Phoenix developers (with NO track record) are doing the right thing. 

Like I said, second round of decal's shows up tomorrow! You can get yours by sending a 49 cent stamped self-addressed standard sized envelope to River Runners For Wilderness, PO Box 30821, Flagstaff, AZ, 86003-0821, while supplies last...


----------



## GC Guide

GCHiker, RichP, and Tom:
Thanks for your posts. Some of this is news to me and I have been enlightened a bit! This is indeed a complex issue. I too hope that the Navajo Nation and their people get to develope an Eastern Rim, well thought out, enterprise. They are wise people and they should do this on their own terms.

Scott,
I truly believe that you are entitled to your opinion, and I would fight for that. I hope that we all recognize the need to explore the lagoon before diving too deep. (I think Gilligan said that) 

Cheers Buzzards! You Rock!


----------



## 2tomcat2

Discussion from many, wondering if any tribal members on the Buzz?


----------



## restrac2000

I just read the Kevin Fedarko piece in the NY Times that was linked by American Rivers and it reminds me of why I so rarely support environmental groups anymore. Kevin is obviously a talented writer but I struggle when individuals summarize conservation issues the way he has. 

I think Fedarko does fall into the trap that shredder-scott highlights in which vocal members of such opposition only support conservation measures that benefit their endeavors. He uses flowery language and religious metaphors to describe the place he loves, glamorizes commercial trips and speed runs yet utterly demeans development. As a former outdoor guide I can attest that the experiences we provided can be transformative in many ways. But you don't see commercial groups in Europe driving Segways's through Notre Dame de Paris during Sunday Mass. How someone can make their name off writing about an illegal speed run on one hand and then try to make such selfish claims to the "sacred" seems inconsistent at best.

I bring this up as one of my larger criticisms is the way these issues get wrapped up the gross generalizations of ideology. It seems only fair to critique the camp I am more affiliated in this regard. I personally believe (and know) that the Tram project will alter how I experience the Grand; I personally believe the developer is abusing historical and socioeconomic issues to benefit themselves; I personally believe there are environmental issues not accounted for in the development plan. That said, I think soliciting sentimental responses like his piece does (as it is designed to be a persuasive essay) explains why we see this issue framed in an antiquated and dysfunctional, ideological and often misinformed narrative on the national level. 

How many more hyperbolic headlines do we need to see about this issue? The classical us-versus-them advocacy groups will say we need it until we win. I am someone who believes this antiquated approach is the reason we have stagnated in environmental policy and continue to essentially fight the same battles over and over again without actually developing sustainable policy and programs that allow for conscientious development (which are fundamental) alongside environmental protection. 

Once again I believe the "how", in this case how we frame and talk about the issue, matters as much if not more than the individual cases we fight over.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> I just read the Kevin Fedarko piece in the NY Times that was linked by American Rivers and it reminds me of why I so rarely support environmental groups anymore. Kevin is obviously a talented writer but I struggle when individuals summarize conservation issues the way he has.
> 
> I think Fedarko does fall into the trap that shredder-scott highlights in which vocal members of such opposition only support conservation measures that benefit their endeavors. He uses flowery language and religious metaphors to describe the place he loves, glamorizes commercial trips and speed runs yet utterly demeans development. As a former outdoor guide I can attest that the experiences we provided can be transformative in many ways. But you don't see commercial groups in Europe driving Segways's through Notre Dame de Paris during Sunday Mass. How someone can make their name off writing about an illegal speed run on one hand and then try to make such selfish claims to the "sacred" seems inconsistent at best.
> 
> I bring this up as one of my larger criticisms is the way these issues get wrapped up the gross generalizations of ideology. It seems only fair to critique the camp I am more affiliated in this regard. I personally believe (and know) that the Tram project will alter how I experience the Grand; I personally believe the developer is abusing historical and socioeconomic issues to benefit themselves; I personally believe there are environmental issues not accounted for in the development plan. That said, I think soliciting sentimental responses like his piece does (as it is designed to be a persuasive essay) explains why we see this issue framed in an antiquated and dysfunctional, ideological and often misinformed narrative on the national level.
> 
> How many more hyperbolic headlines do we need to see about this issue? The classical us-versus-them advocacy groups will say we need it until we win. I am someone who believes this antiquated approach is the reason we have stagnated in environmental policy and continue to essentially fight the same battles over and over again without actually developing sustainable policy and programs that allow for conscientious development (which are fundamental) alongside environmental protection.
> 
> Once again I believe the "how", in this case how we frame and talk about the issue, matters as much if not more than the individual cases we fight over.
> 
> Phillip


Phillip

Well said.

Us vs them is a losing strategy. 

Extremists at both ends are wrecking the experience for many users. 

We need to share the resources, not demonize each other. Understanding and compassion, for other users needs are sorely missing attributes.

It was ask of me....would giving up a few miles of river front to OHV use really ruin my day? ..no ....it would not...........would it really ruin the grand experience to spend a few minutes of one day of your trip passing the gondola and to smile and wave at the poor tourist stuck on shore ?

It is sad the gondola can not be located at the current rim vistors center....it is a foolish policy, not to keep development as much as possible to a single high density spot. But environmental extremists are getting in the way of rational planning. ....and sprawl, with greater negative environmental impact is the result of this type of rigid, environmental extremists ideas.

I find the idea of a gonola ride from rim to floor to be a very appealing idea...they are quite, safe, efficient, allows a LARGE group of less able folks a safe, controlled opportunity to experience the rim, the floor, and the vertical. ....all while having in my mind, a minimal negative impact on the environment and other users. 

This just seems like such a clean low impact way to share a rim to floor experence with others and very important to me... ... it makes the expernce accessible to those less fortunate!! Jetboats, rafts, and helicopters do a poor job in providing access for the less fortunate and jetboats can have signficant negative inpacts on other users.


As river lovers it is hypocrisy to not share, we need help our less able, less skilled brothers and sister in having acess to river, so they to can enjoy from shore, the wonderful world of rivers.....shutting them out is a selfish attribute that runs counter to a river culture of helping and supporting our fellow boaters.

As boaters we should be supporting this concept, and be offerings ideas on how to impove on the concept, not stop it.


Paddle on


Scott


----------



## wildh2onriver

For me, enough is enough. We're already in a world of hurt with over development and diminishing water supplies, compounded by drought on this earth wide warming trend. Adding something like this seems ridiculous to me. 

I love gondolas, but not this one. Certainly not for the arguments stated by a few. This doesn't fit at all with what's at stake here in my opinion.




http://matadornetwork.com/pulse/5-things-we-stand-to-lose-if-a-gondola-is-built-in-the-grand-canyon/


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## shredder-scott

wildh2onriver said:


> For me, enough is enough. We're already in a world of hurt with over development and diminishing water supplies, compounded by drought on this earth wide warming trend. Adding something like this seems ridiculous to me.
> 
> I love gondolas, but not this one. Certainly not for the arguments stated by a few. This doesn't fit at all with what's at stake here in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 things we lose if a gondola is built in the Grand Canyon
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


Hi




I reviewed the article you cite....It only reenforces my view, of the need for the project, and how extreme the opposition postion is, the article makes 5 points.

1 Its Scared Land....perhaps....but it is most certainly tribal land....it is up to tribe to decide what is scared land, and what is not....that is not for us to decide.....we need to butt out on this argument !!..it is for the tribe to balance the ethical needs, of current, past and future members not us ! ....That is their internal policy decision. ...it is hypocrisy for an outsider to frame a opposing argument around this point....it is NOT his call to the tell the tribe what is and is not scared....this is a egotistical, I know what best for you argument !....it is insulting !

2 A end to a way of life-tradtions....what a poor argument this is !....their traditional ways were wreck when they were forced on the reservations.....this project has no effect on that !

3. Delayed gratification. ...another egotistical self serving argument...my way is the only way argument....so what if his way locks out that majority less fortunate folks that are unable to experience the grand his way ! A very selfish argument.

4...A fargile ecosystem. ...true it is, but this project I maintain will have limited negative impacts to both the environment and other users.. His claim that that is project will cause noise pollution is laughable...This would be an environmentaly responsible way for many folks to see how special the rim, the wall, and the floor is ....this argument is full of holes !

5...People Vs Nature....this project would educate folks on nature....to suggest this project will have negative effects on golbal warming and drought has NO basis in science. ...it is a lie ! In fact through the environmental education it provides...it may influence folks to lead greener lives, and therby play a roll in combating globally warning and drought !

This may not be the ideal spot for the gondola as some many others are off limits.....but the concept is environmentally sound.

We need to share the experience not lock folks out.

I still maintain we should support not oppose this concept....we need stay out of the tribial internal policy arguments.

paddle on

scott


----------



## GCHiker4887

Scott-
I get it. You want a Gondola to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but some of your counter points to the 5 arguments are ridiculous. Let me take a few of these on:

1. Who are you to determine what is/not sacred land to the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, etc? The members of the tribe WHO DO NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY AS PARTNERS are opposed to this. Bodaway/Gap is opposed to this. Drive 89 through Cameron. They do not want the development. Those are the folks on the ground. The NAVAJO people. Unfortunately, their leaders are corrupt and open to monetary influences. Ask the Save The Confluence folks if it has been, is and will continue to be sacred to them, their family and their tribe. I know what the answer is already...

2. This just shows how much you do not know about the Navajo and Hopi people. Sure, they are on a reservation. What makes this unique is that they are on their historic lands! The places they have lived for hundreds if not thousands of years. I applaud them for continuing to believe in their cultural heritage and traditions, while the rest of the world undoubtedly tries to influence them into something else. Educate yourself before you make such a heavy-handed statement as to whether this has an effect on the local people.

3. The Parks were not designated to provide 'easy' access to places. They have been set aside for PRESERVATION. It is land that is held in trust for the people. This includes the Navajo Lands above the confluence and below the rim to the boundary. This land was deemed to be part of the Grand Canyon in the 1975 Enlargement Act. In fact, this is a Navajo Tribal Park. Something tells me it is pretty important to them as well. I frankly like the fact that there are places that are difficult to access. So by correlation, I bet you would be pretty stoked to see a Gondola to the top of El Capitan in Yosemite too right? That's basically what you are suggesting. Easy access for all, right?

4. So where is the waste from the bathrooms going to go Scott? Some settling ponds at the confluence behind the restaurants and gift shops? Where are they going to get water Scott? The Colorado is over-allocated and off limits. The LCR is highly mineralized and polluted. That won't work. There is no groundwater in the area. Are they going to truck it in? From where? What's environmentally responsible about clearing land of native vegetation, drilling rock for foundations and supports, and then building an elevated river walk? Seems pretty impactful to the environment to me. Now on the other hand, hiking in leaves only footprints. Even the rafters have to haul out their shit. Seems your argument is the flawed one...

5. I can't even touch your response to this. You would think that every single commercial passenger who takes a trip down the River in Grand Canyon is now a steward to protect the lands right? This has been studied and it is a fallacy. You do know who the target customer is right? This is not for anyone but the Asian/Chinese tourists. The day trippers from Las Vegas. The idea is to steal away the tourists from GC West. They will build an airstrip. They will fly in fixed wing aircraft to the rim on a conveyor line. Then they will operate Helicopter tours around the rim and down in the canyon. Ever been to Quartermaster? Yep, that's what the Confluence is going to become.

After reading your back and forth, I am pretty sure you are working for the Escalade Developers. Either way, sure sounds like you sold out. Luckily, most of the people reading this thread are smarter than to believe this is a good idea. It is our right and responsibility to oppose this. And I do. And I will keep supporting the Confluence Families. This development is purely about greed. The developers don't give a shit if people enjoy their experience. They just want the money (and the way the legislation is written, they keep 92%). That's all this is about. And because a group of white folks from Phoenix have come up to the LCR with the hopes of raping the land, then by correlation, my white ass can voice opposition. This is NOT a tribal issue. This is a money and corruption issue. Grand Canyon belongs to us all, and it should be left as it is.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

I think its sad that the whitewater community would want to restrict access to people who don't enjoy water sports as much as we do! In the mean time this same community wants to alter rivers and build dirt road access for themselves and have the tax payer foot the bill. I see it all the time and the whitewater community can't get buy in for personal projects. Its these types of actions that create the image that the world sees us as! just saying... 


The Big Ditch is.. Well for lack of a better word.. BIG. And this project is not the end all of all that is great about the GC. I personally would use a gondola in this example. And I see this as a positive service for people who very well may learn to protect our environment more simply because of the experience. 


Haters will hate!


----------



## Maxident

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think its sad that the whitewater community would want to restrict access to people who don't enjoy water sports as much as we do! In the mean time this same community wants to alter rivers and build dirt road access for themselves and have the tax payer foot the bill. I see it all the time and the whitewater community can't get buy in for personal projects. Its these types of actions that create the image that the world sees us as! just saying...
> 
> 
> The Big Ditch is.. Well for lack of a better word.. BIG. And this project is not the end all of all that is great about the GC. I personally would use a gondola in this example. And I see this as a positive service for people who very well may learn to protect our environment more simply because of the experience.
> 
> 
> Haters will hate!


Where do we draw the line? The ditch is big, therefore there's room for development? How much? I say none. And I would say the same for any place I cannot access with my kayak or raft. I do not want them to move dirt for new roads so I can get to new places. Too many roads as it is. I do not want them to alter rivers. They have seen too much alteration.


----------



## GCHiker4887

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think its sad that the whitewater community would want to restrict access to people who don't enjoy water sports as much as we do! In the mean time this same community wants to alter rivers and build dirt road access for themselves and have the tax payer foot the bill. I see it all the time and the whitewater community can't get buy in for personal projects. Its these types of actions that create the image that the world sees us as! just saying...
> 
> 
> The Big Ditch is.. Well for lack of a better word.. BIG. And this project is not the end all of all that is great about the GC. I personally would use a gondola in this example. And I see this as a positive service for people who very well may learn to protect our environment more simply because of the experience.
> 
> 
> Haters will hate!


The beautiful thing about a Grand Canyon River trip, or hiking in Grand Canyon, or Backpacking in Grand Canyon is the wilderness characteristics. On a river trip you feel like you are on an expedition. On a backpacking trip in many (most) parts of the park, you feel like you are in a very remote place. What ruins these experiences right now? Civilization. Motors. Helicopters. Why on earth would anyone advocate taking the longest stretch of navigable river in the US that does not have a road, or power lines, or... and advocate for making it more industrialized? The very value that wilderness is, and yes I have seen enough GC (closing in on 200 nights, only 45 or so on the river) to know it deserves wilderness protection, is to get away from lots of other people, and cars, and helicopters and everything else society has to offer. It doesn't need cell phone towers. It doesn't need a gondola or tram. It doesn't need any of what the Hualapai are doing out in Quartermaster. That's the point. Mother nature is in charge, there is no reason for people to come in and ruin it. We are talking about a World Heritage Site. One of the SEVEN natural wonders of the world. Why should we accept any development there? There is nothing we can do to make it better than it is right now, except maybe tear down Glen Canyon Dam...


----------



## shredder-scott

GCHiker4887 said:


> Scott-
> I get it. You want a Gondola to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but some of your counter points to the 5 arguments are ridiculous. Let me take a few of these on:
> 
> 
> Either way, sure sounds like you sold out. Luckily, most of the people reading this thread are smarter than to believe this is a good idea.


Hey GC hiker

Thanks for responding to my posts.

I am sorry you found my counter points to be ridiculous. ....I personally found the arguments I was responding to be fairly ridiculous to begin with.

I do not work for any one involved on either side of the project.

If by sold out, you mean I am pro responsible use of our resources ...then that would be accurate. 

It is clear you and I have a different vision for how our resources should be used, or not used.

You to claim that your view represents most buzzards....there have been like 60 posts, and 4,000+ views....what data do you have to support that statement ?

I have read your post, from them, I gather that you hold a rather rigid postion with little to no room for compromise on land use issues.. ...So be it.......I shall simply endeavor to agree to disagree with you in a repectful manner.

You appear to be fundamentally opposed to any development no matter how thought out.

I maintain the impact of the gondola is minimal to both the environment and others users. I belive the concept has significantly greater benfits than negs.

Personally, I think it is very cool the amount u have been fortunate enough to explore on foot.BUT....the vast majority of folks are not as fortunate as you....and they allso deserve a gc experience.

I find it sad, that you are so unwilling to share a little so others less fortunate than you can get a taste of what you love.

Personally, I receive great pleasure when I give and share....I suggest you try it some time, you might enjoy it.

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## GCHiker4887

shredder-scott said:


> Hey GC hiker
> 
> Thanks for responding to my posts.
> 
> I am sorry you found my counter points to be ridiculous. ....I personally found the arguments I was responding to be fairly ridiculous to begin with.
> 
> I do not work for any one involved on either side of the project.
> 
> If by sold out, you mean I am pro responsible use of our resources ...then that would be accurate.
> 
> It is clear you and I have a different vision for how our resources should be used, or not used.
> 
> You to claim that your view represents most buzzards....there have been like 60 posts, and 4,000+ views....what data do you have to support that statement ?
> 
> I have read your post, from them, I gather that you hold a rather rigid postion with little to no room for compromise on land use issues.. ...So be it.......I shall simply endeavor to agree to disagree with you in a repectful manner.
> 
> You appear to be fundamentally opposed to any development no matter how thought out.
> 
> I maintain the impact of the gondola is minimal to both the environment and others users. I belive the concept has significantly greater benfits than negs.
> 
> Personally, I think it is very cool the amount u have been fortunate enough to explore on foot.BUT....the vast majority of folks are not as fortunate as you....and they allso deserve a gc experience.
> 
> I find it sad, that you are so unwilling to share a little so others less fortunate than you can get a taste of what you love.
> 
> Personally, I receive great pleasure when I give and share....I suggest you try it some time, you might enjoy it.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


Man! I must really be coming across as a dick. Let the people who can't/don't want to raft or hike or mule see the canyon from the rims. If they want an experience from the bottom, they should drive the Diamond Creek Road. If they want a helicopter picnic overlooking the river they should go to Quartermaster. All of these things are possible right now. 

The point is, there is no true demand for the type of access you talk about. It is a scheme invented by a bunch of rich guys from Scottsdale to make more money. It is not about 'letting Americans have a Grand Canyon Experience'. 

Bottom line, the Grand Canyon is way overdeveloped and overused as it is. There are plenty of ways for people to have an experience from the top to the bottom now. 

Hey, so about that Tram up to the top of El Cap. Or that zip line down Angels Landing.....


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

Maxident said:


> Where do we draw the line? The ditch is big, therefore there's room for development? How much? I say none. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Well, No room for development does not leave much room for discussion! No real debate here. Just one point of view with zero middle ground.
> 
> Kinda sounds very republican to me. Read my lips "_No New Development_."
> 
> So, I guess that ends the conversation. Now if we can only get the world to stop spinning and end change that does not benefit you!


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

GCHiker4887 said:


> The beautiful thing about a Grand Canyon River trip, or hiking in Grand Canyon, or Backpacking in Grand Canyon is the wilderness characteristics. On a river trip you feel like you are on an expedition. On a backpacking trip in many (most) parts of the park, you feel like you are in a very remote place. What ruins these experiences right now? Civilization. Motors. Helicopters. Why on earth would anyone advocate taking the longest stretch of navigable river in the US that does not have a road, or power lines, or... and advocate for making it more industrialized? The very value that wilderness is, and yes I have seen enough GC (closing in on 200 nights, only 45 or so on the river) to know it deserves wilderness protection, is to get away from lots of other people, and cars, and helicopters and everything else society has to offer. It doesn't need cell phone towers. It doesn't need a gondola or tram. It doesn't need any of what the Hualapai are doing out in Quartermaster. That's the point. Mother nature is in charge, there is no reason for people to come in and ruin it. We are talking about a World Heritage Site. One of the SEVEN natural wonders of the world. Why should we accept any development there? There is nothing we can do to make it better than it is right now, except maybe tear down Glen Canyon Dam...


 While I too completely enjoy wild places, I also know that I could boat for days without seeing said ski lift in the GC. It would only impact my experience for ONE DAY. Well really only a couple hours of one day and I personally wonted let that blow my GC experience. I'm just not that caught up in keeping good people out of wild places. There is soooo much wild land around the GC that I could hike for weeks without crossing paths with anyone. The bottom line is that there really isn't much to develop in the ditch. We should accept development to give others the opportunity to grow personally via a GC experience. If only 1% of users gain a new perspective then its worth it to me. Its that simple. 

I ask you why we should deny others this opportunity.


----------



## Maxident

dirtbagkayaker said:


> Now if we can only get the world to stop spinning and end change that does not benefit you!


Fairly arrogant and presumptive to imply I only want development that benefits me. You don't know me or my ideals.


----------



## marley

dirtbagkayaker said:


> While I too completely enjoy wild places, I also know that I could boat for days without seeing said ski lift in the GC. It would only impact my experience for ONE DAY. Well really only a couple hours of one day and I personally wonted let that blow my GC experience. I'm just not that caught up in keeping good people out of wild places. There is soooo much wild land around the GC that I could hike for weeks without crossing paths with anyone. The bottom line is that there really isn't much to develop in the ditch. We should accept development to give others the opportunity to grow personally via a GC experience. If only 1% of users gain a new perspective then its worth it to me. Its that simple.
> 
> I ask you why we should deny others this opportunity.


We deny people all sorts of oppurtunites. For example, you cannot drive motorcycles through churches. That seems like it would be a lot of fun and something that should not be denied. It's a value judgment though. What do you value? Do you value solely access for all? That sets a pretty low common denominator and will lead to handrails throughtout the canyon.

It's not really one day either. You may not realize this because it will only impact your experience for "ONE DAY" but there is exceptional backpacking in that area on both sides of the river and in the LCR's canyon. The area around the LCR is likely one of the most beautiful parts of the canyon. Light pollution from the sure to come lighting scheme will visually destroy the area. Traffic along the left bank of the Colorado and through the LCR will increase considerably. Air tours will likely increase because a helipad will have to accompany the area. There's better ways for the Navajos to make a living than this boondoggle.

I have no problem suggesting people should be denied the oppurtunity to destroy that part of the canyon. In fact, we should be scaling back high impact human actiivity throughtout the canyon. What is high impact? Pretty much anything that leaves a permanent footprint, air tours, and motor boats.

Scott


----------



## Paddle_like_Hell

In response to anyone saying anything to the effect of "sharing the experience" or "access for all" let's get something straight: NATURE DOESN'T OWE YOU OR ME A GOD DAMN THING. 

If you build a building or an amusement park than assuring equal access and making sure that whatever the synthetic experience created by humans for humans has value but we (collectively known as the human race and encompassing all tribes, races, and traditions) did not build or develop the Grand Canyon, and it is not our place to provide access to anyone (able bodied or not). I'll go as far as to say that not only our National Parks but all un-developed land where un-fettered nature reigns more than human (from urban greenbelts down to that 10 acre lot down the road from your house) is not something we, as humans, should feel obligated to make accessible to anyone. The GC doesn't NEED any of the services, points of access, or anything else that currently require human effort or money to accomplish and it doesn't need a Gondola. 

This doesn’t mean that we can’t work to improve access to nature but we do so solely in selfishness and framing that selfishness as an “obligation” is non-sense. This is not a modern conservation philosophy but one championed by the original stewards of what is now our country. A people that before the America’s were opened up for “access for all” walked upon these lands with much more grace than their current inhabits. National, federal, state, tribal, private, public, etc. this is not our land to do with what we like it regardless of who the “we” is. These are scared places that we are lucky enough to be granted passage upon, only on occasion and at the sole discretion of Nature (an agency that remains outside the control of any governing body created by man). 

“This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
-Chief Seattle


----------



## GCHiker4887

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I ask you why we should deny others this opportunity.


I ask you to have a discussion with the folks who live in the area. The families that were affected by the Bennett Freeze and now are fighting with their entire being to protect a place they hold sacred. This is not about me or you or how it affects us. This is about a site that people believe is where they emerged. Where their family goes after they die. Seems like I should value their opinions. Check out Save the Confluence Home - Save the Confluence 

When the NPS closed the lower Deer Creek narrows after some douchebags left a rope fixed in the falls, there was outrage. Turns out, the Kaibab Paiute believe their family members travel to the next life through the narrows. 

We know who came first, and it wasn't us. It was the Puebloans. The other tribes that still live in the area. 

So let me ask you a question: Who are we really denying here? The tourists will go somewhere else, but once you destroy a sacred site, where do those people go to pray? To worship? What happens to the spirits of their deceased family members? 

This isn't going to a majority vote. This is a back room deal being negotiated behind closed doors by a corrupt outgoing Navajo Nation President who stands to make a lot of money if he can push it through.

This is about money, and not about some warm and fuzzy feeling of some poor kid getting to experience the Grand Canyon. Gotta stop drinking the Kool Aid man....


----------



## marley

GCHiker4887 said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> This is about money, and not about some warm and fuzzy feeling of some poor kid getting to experience the Grand Canyon. Gotta stop drinking the Kool Aid man....


Couldn't agree more with you. It always strikes me as funny when access for all arguments are made in relationship to the outdoors. Unfortunately, mother nature discriminates and is unfair to those who are lesser bodied. It's the way it is. I'd love to climb some of the wonderful buttes in the canyon and the big walls in Yosemite. Unfortunately, I lack the aptitude and will never be able to do so, but I admire the people who do. I don't sit around and demand that ladders be installed so I can enjoy access.

We have places were physical limitations should be accomodated. These places are called "cities." Access for all is a compelling argument in cities, but not in the great outdoors.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

GCHiker4887 said:


> I ask you to have a discussion with the folks who live in the area. The families that were affected by the Bennett Freeze and now are fighting with their entire being to protect a place they hold sacred. This is not about me or you or how it affects us. This is about a site that people believe is where they emerged. Where their family goes after they die. Seems like I should value their opinions. Check out Save the Confluence Home - Save the Confluence
> 
> When the NPS closed the lower Deer Creek narrows after some douchebags left a rope fixed in the falls, there was outrage. Turns out, the Kaibab Paiute believe their family members travel to the next life through the narrows.
> 
> We know who came first, and it wasn't us. It was the Puebloans. The other tribes that still live in the area.
> 
> So let me ask you a question: Who are we really denying here? The tourists will go somewhere else, but once you destroy a sacred site, where do those people go to pray? To worship? What happens to the spirits of their deceased family members?
> 
> This isn't going to a majority vote. This is a back room deal being negotiated behind closed doors by a corrupt outgoing Navajo Nation President who stands to make a lot of money if he can push it through.
> 
> This is about money, and not about some warm and fuzzy feeling of some poor kid getting to experience the Grand Canyon. Gotta stop drinking the Kool Aid man....


I only drink Tech8.  So I'm good. But I really am sorry that this will screw up the GC and your life and many others lives as far as I can tell. I know how it feels to have outside influence on local projects as well. I live in Idaho and we are loaded with transplants (some are on this forum) that think they know what is best for Idaho. I am also sorry that you just learned that money makes the world go around, you don't have any, and your vote don't mean shit. I get that you feel like the ski lift is a bad idea just like most Idahoans don't like the idea of dogs bigger and meaner then pit pulls running freely through our state. No hard feeling - just different points of view. 
Good luck on your fight.


----------



## spider

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I only drink Tech8.  So I'm good. But I really am sorry that this will screw up the GC and your life and many others lives as far as I can tell. I know how it feels to have outside influence on local projects as well. I live in Idaho and we are loaded with transplants (some are on this forum) that think they know what is best for Idaho. I am also sorry that you just learned that money makes the world go around, you don't have any, and your vote don't mean shit. I get that you feel like the ski lift is a bad idea just like most Idahoans don't like the idea of dogs bigger and meaner then pit pulls running freely through our state. No hard feeling - just different points of view.
> Good luck on your fight.


 That's funny you mentioned wolves, saw a dead one in the back of a jeep two days ago. Good job I say. This thread makes me want to avoid GC at all costs. That said, I think we have put enough ski lifts in the world.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

Maxident said:


> Fairly arrogant and presumptive to imply I only want development that benefits me. You don't know me or my ideals.


I think I got you spot on! You resort to name calling and get all defensive when a counter argument is presented. You leave no room for discussion and "_hold an all or nothing position_." You're a no middle ground - my way or the highway type of person

What else would you like me to know about you?


----------



## marley

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think I got you spot on! You resort to name calling and get all defensive when a counter argument is presented. You leave no room for discussion and "_hold an all or nothing position_." You're a no middle ground - my way or the highway type of person
> 
> What else would you like me to know about you?


Compromise is not always the ideal that some believe it to be. For example, let's say I want to cut your arm off. You're likely to say "no way." What if in the spirit of compromise I offer to only cut it off to the elbow? Are you in? Why not? Middle ground is good, no?

Unfortunately, open spaces are getting fewer and fewer and encroached upon by developers everyday. The compromises have already been made. Finding middle ground (err, half a gondola) is not admirable or desirable with this issue. A better approach would be for us to help the Navajos, and other tribes, develop real and sustainable economies. Real economies aren't dependent on big cash cows, casinos, and cigarette sales. They depend on human capital that is developed through education.


----------



## Maxident

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think I got you spot on! You resort to name calling and get all defensive when a counter argument is presented. You leave no room for discussion and "_hold an all or nothing position_." You're a no middle ground - my way or the highway type of person
> 
> What else would you like me to know about you?


I'm sorry. Maybe I read you wrong. But it seemed to me that you suddenly turned hostile by implying hypocrisy. But there was no name calling. Just pointing out that your hostility derives from perhaps you thinking you know more than you do. I got the feeling your prejudices toward environmentally minded folks forced you to put me in some box you invented or were taught. 

I didn't think you had a counter argument. Just a "oh no room for discussion" comment which is not a counter point. And you're right, I'm passionate about my view point just as you are about wolves. Which, from your earlier comments makes me think you hold the same "no middle ground" attitude. Am I right? I wholeheartedly oppose this project and all other development in the wilderness just like you (from what I can tell) wholeheartedly oppose the reintroduction of a native species. Agree to disagree?


----------



## Maxident

marley said:


> Compromise is not always the ideal that some believe it to be. For example, let's say I want to cut your arm off. You're likely to say "no way." What if in the spirit of compromise I offer to only cut it off to the elbow? Are you in? Why not? Middle ground is good, no?
> 
> Unfortunately, open spaces are getting fewer and fewer and encroached upon by developers everyday. The compromises have already been made. Finding middle ground (err, half a gondola) is not admirable or desirable with this issue. A better approach would be for us to help the Navajos, and other tribes, develop real and sustainable economies. Real economies aren't dependent on big cash cows, casinos, and cigarette sales. They depend on human capital that is developed through education.


Thank you. My sentiments exactly.


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

Only Sith deal in absolutes!


----------



## Maxident

Call me Darth Rat.


----------



## cataraftgirl

I personally don't think that a few hours riding a gondola into the Grand Canyon and eating lunch at an overpriced riverside eatery will cause a life changing epiphany for the majority of the folks who fork out the money for this experience. They will enjoy it, or not, and then hop back into their RV and motor on to the next scenic overlook. It's a business venture, not an altruistic endeavor aimed at providing access to an enriching wilderness experience. Might it plant a seed of outdoor stewardship in the heart of some teenager from a big city? Perhaps. Might it be the highlight of a senior citizens western vacation? Probably. Might it bug the crap out of a river rafter as they float by on their 18 day GC trip. Most certainly. Will putting a "No Gondola In The Grand Canyon" sticker on my truck or on my dry box make a bit of difference in the long run when the issue will likely be decided the way most issues are....by back room wheeling & dealing plus a lot of $$$$$. Not likely.

My lame two cents, but I have enjoyed reading all the posts, opinions, and firmly held viewpoints. Food for thought is never a bad thing.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> we have places were physical limitations should be accomodated,. These places are called "cities." Access for all is a compelling argument in cities, but not in the great outdoors.


Wow...

I find your views regarding the less fortunate and acess to the outdoors to be very disturbing. Man....... those same kind of discrimatory views came out of the mouth Hitler...I have pity for you have a cold, soul, you exhibit no compassion for others.

I find it disturbing your views appear to have the support of so many.

I doubt the great Bob Marley would approve, he sang about, love, and anti descrimation perhaps you would find some benefit in listening to some of his music.




GCHiker4887 said:


> Gotta stop drinking the Kool Aid man....


Yeah man....I drink deeply of the orange Kool aid.....goes with riding off road KTM motorcycles.....got any extra ?

It is simple, you guys have rigid no compromise approach. 

Myself, and others see a benifit to gondola concept. ....I am not sure this is best location.....but the concept is sound.

I unlike you will, take no part, in what should be internal discussion and policys among the tribe, on what is and what is not scared to them.....I unlike you have faith in their ability to make their own choices.....This concept is not being forced on them...it is being offered to them.

Regardless of the location, I maintain that the concept of a gondola from rim to floor is a good one, with many benifits.

I urge my fellow boaters not to oppose this project.

paddle on

Scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Wow...
> 
> I find your views regarding the less fortunate and acess to the outdoors to be very disturbing. Man....... those same kind of discrimatory views came out of the mouth Hitler...I have pity for you have a cold, soul, you exhibit no compassion for others.
> 
> I find it disturbing your views appear to have the support of so many.
> 
> I doubt the great Bob Marley would approve, he sang about, love, and anti descrimation perhaps you would find some benefit in listening to some of his music.


I know Bob Marley very well. I suspect he would agree completely. He's never been one for handrails in the canyon either.

By the way you lose. The first to accuse the other of being Hitler or like Hitler loses all discussions. Look up Godwin's Law. Reason being my wanting to keep wilderness wild, which unfortunatley the wilderness discriminates against the disabled, is nowhere near the horror of 6 million people being murdered during the Holocaust.


Scott Marley (son of Bob, but not the Jamaican one)


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> I know Bob Marley very well. I suspect he would agree completely. He's never been one for handrails in the canyon either.
> 
> By the way you lose. The first to accuse the other of being Hitler or like Hitler loses all discussions. Look up Godwin's Law. Reason being my wanting to keep wilderness wild, which unfortunatley the wilderness discriminates against the disabled, is nowhere near the horror of 6 million people being murdered during the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> Scott Marley (son of Bob, but not the Jamaican one)


I lose nothing...I stated a fact ...that is all, .....yours and his discrimatory views share a exclusionary theme. ..,I know facts can hurt.,,but facts are facts...bummer for you ...there are ugly groups that also share cold hearted discrimatory views.

paddle on

scott


----------



## GPP33

shredder-scott said:


> Phillip
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Us vs them is a losing strategy.
> 
> Extremists at both ends are wrecking the experience for many users.
> 
> We need to share the resources, not demonize each other. Understanding and compassion, for other users needs are sorely missing attributes.
> 
> It was ask of me....would giving up a few miles of river front to OHV use really ruin my day? ..no ....it would not...........would it really ruin the grand experience to spend a few minutes of one day of your trip passing the gondola and to smile and wave at the poor tourist stuck on shore ?
> 
> It is sad the gondola can not be located at the current rim vistors center....it is a foolish policy, not to keep development as much as possible to a single high density spot. But environmental extremists are getting in the way of rational planning. ....and sprawl, with greater negative environmental impact is the result of this type of rigid, environmental extremists ideas.
> 
> I find the idea of a gonola ride from rim to floor to be a very appealing idea...they are quite, safe, efficient, allows a LARGE group of less able folks a safe, controlled opportunity to experience the rim, the floor, and the vertical. ....all while having in my mind, a minimal negative impact on the environment and other users.
> 
> This just seems like such a clean low impact way to share a rim to floor experence with others and very important to me... ... it makes the expernce accessible to those less fortunate!! Jetboats, rafts, and helicopters do a poor job in providing access for the less fortunate and jetboats can have signficant negative inpacts on other users.
> 
> 
> As river lovers it is hypocrisy to not share, we need help our less able, less skilled brothers and sister in having acess to river, so they to can enjoy from shore, the wonderful world of rivers.....shutting them out is a selfish attribute that runs counter to a river culture of helping and supporting our fellow boaters.
> 
> As boaters we should be supporting this concept, and be offerings ideas on how to impove on the concept, not stop it.
> 
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> 
> Scott


Well said yourself Scott. Your logic and reasoning is sound, despite what some here might want to believe. 

Provided this is what the native people, the people who presumably own the land (have we figured it out yet?) want then I'm 100% behind it. As you have said it's quiet, non-intrusive has minimal negative environmental impact and offers an amazing experience. Plus it has the potential to bring some income to a much needed society. 

I'm not talking about the location or the structure of the partnership between the tribes and the developers (because I don't know enough about either), I'm talking about the concept of a tram/gondola which is really what the argument here is about. 

Pete


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> I lose nothing...I stated a fact ...that is all, .....yours and his discrimatory views share a exclusionary theme. ..,I know facts can hurt.,,but facts are facts...bummer for you
> 
> paddle on
> 
> scott


No you've decided that access trumps protection in all ways; a view that is likely not held even by people with disabilities. And if someone doesn't agree with you, you call them Hitler. Not very sophisticated and reflects poorly upon your argumentation skills.


----------



## DoStep

marley said:


> Compromise is not always the ideal that some believe it to be. For example, let's say I want to cut your arm off. You're likely to say "no way." What if in the spirit of compromise I offer to only cut it off to the elbow? Are you in? Why not? Middle ground is good, no?


 
Both sides get something in return in a compromise, and perspective is everything. What do you want in exchange for cutting my arm off?


----------



## cataraftgirl

A business that shuttles paying customers/tourists from the rim to the floor of the GC does not equal outdoor access to "less fortunate" folks. I support groups like First Descents and Splore that offer real, meaningful, outdoor access and experiences to the disabled and those battling cancer. To present this Gondola idea in the same light as those groups is shameful in my book. Its a business venture pure and simple. As much as we want to argue philosophical viewpoints, and see this as some wonderful magical carpet ride to wilderness for everyone, it is a tourist attraction designed to make money. If it wasn't a viable business idea, it never would have been proposed. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are many business ventures already in place in the GC that offer different degrees of access & GC experience to paying customers. This would just be one more business, and each of us has our own opinion on the merits of another such business in the GC.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> No you've decided that access trumps protection in all ways; a view that is likely not help people with disabilities. And if someone doesn't agree with you, you call them Hitler. Not very sophisticated and reflects poorly upon your argumentation skills.


Um..,,lets see

I do have handicap friends, lost one recently a great gentle man who had a warm heart, a Olympic medalist, the great skier, my friend Mr. Jimmy Huega, the founder of the Hugea Foundation for ms.

I assure he belived deeply in handicap folks having acess to the outdoors. ...Instead of guessing how handicap people feel....here is idea....talk to and befriend a few....my family has been involved with helping the handicap for years.....even have our names on a plaque at the Courage Center in Minneapolis, for helping to build this cutting edge center for handicap rehab and empowerment.

You over state my postion, acess does not trump all in my view....but your 0 acess view is abhorrent and evil to me.

I never called you any names, I said your cold heart discrimatory views on the handicap are similar to his....you don't like that....I suggest you soften your heart to needs of others less fortunate than your self !

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott

cataraftgirl said:


> A business that shuttles paying customers/tourists from the rim to the floor of the GC does not equal outdoor access to "less fortunate" folks. I support groups like First Descents and Splore that offer real, meaningful, outdoor access and experiences to the disabled and those battling cancer. To present this Gondola idea in the same light as those groups is shameful in my book. Its a business venture pure and simple. As much as we want to argue philosophical viewpoints, and see this as some wonderful magical carpet ride to wilderness for everyone, it is a tourist attraction designed to make money. If it wasn't a viable business idea, it never would have been proposed. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are many business ventures already in place in the GC that offer different degrees of access & GC experience to paying customers. This would just be one more business, and each of us has our own opinion on the merits of another such business in the GC.


I am sorry catraft girl but those groups you mention do a great job....but they are available to only a few....many remain excluded.

For many handicap folks, the gondola ride is all the outdoor experience they can handle.. ,,you are being very selfish, in your my way is the only way to have " real" outdoor experience view.

Have you ever worked with the handicap in a outdoor setting....I have...

Paddle on

Scott

Scott


----------



## JustinJam

Is the lower station of the LCR in the National Park?

We may want to consider the NPS mission statement, if not in the letter than perhaps in the spirit.

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.

I know everyone can interpret this to their own effect, but the "National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources ....for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." seems to be a key concept (for me at least).

Can we look upon our future generations and say that this will have benefited them unimpaired our natural and cultural resources?


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Um..,,lets see
> 
> I do have handicap friends, lost one recently a great gentle man who had a warm heart, a Olympic medalist, the great skier, my friend Mr. Jimmy Huega, the founder of the Hugea Foundation for ms.
> 
> I assure he belived deeply in handicap folks having acess to the outdoors. ...Instead of guessing how handicap people feel....here is idea....talk to and befriend a few....my family has been involved with helping the handicap for years.....even have our names on a plaque at the Courage Center in Minneapolis, for helping to build this cutting edge center for handicap rehab and empowerment.
> 
> You over state my postion, acess does not trump all in my view....but your 0 acess view is abhorrent and evil to me.
> 
> I never called you any names, I said your cold heart discrimatory views on the handicap are similar to his....you don't like that....I suggest you soften your heart to needs of others less fortunate than your self !
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


You're confusing yourself now. Good for you, you had a disabled friend. Doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head with the inflammatory rhetoric that you have in your posts when people disagree with you about access. You really do need to rethink your use of Hitler when your disagree with people. It severely weakens your position. Perhaps you're too young to be knowledgeable about the Holocaust?

There's no hardness in my heart I'm all for helping people access the outdoors. Perhaps there are ways to modify the people to be able to participate in outdoor pursuits instead of grossly modifying the environment? Your argument while emotive is not very compelling to most, because it can be applied to everything. A disabled person can't hike the trail up to Angel's landing in Zion. Quick build a tram!! A person can't hike around Powell Plateau. Quick build a wheelchair accessible sidewalk. A person can't get to the top of Everest. Quick build an elevator!! This list of ways the environment needs to be modified to accomodate the disabled is endless; and if all these accomodations were possible the very nature of wilderness would be destroyed.

These aren't things that disabled people are asking for as they recognize that wilderness can exist that they are unable to access and are fine with it. You're using disability as a tool to strengthen your poor argumentation skills, but it's not working.


----------



## cataraftgirl

shredder-scott said:


> I am sorry catraft girl but those groups you mention do a great job....but they are available to only a few....many remain excluded.
> 
> For many handicap folks, the gondola ride is all the outdoor experience they can handle.. ,,you are being very selfish, in your my way is the only way to have " real" outdoor experience view.
> 
> Have you ever worked with the handicap in a outdoor setting....I have...
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott
> 
> Scott


 I have no problem with providing access to disabled individuals. I never said that. I myself have a disability that prevents me from enjoying many of the outdoor pursuits I once did. I work with disabled young people every day. What I have a problem with is deeming a business decision as having extra merit because it provides access to the disabled that it is required by law under the ADA to provide. The fact that disabled folks can use the proposed Gondola doesn't mean that it is automatically a good decision or that those who oppose it are selfish or cold hearted. The gondola proposal doesn't get extra bonus points one way or the other just because it provides handicap access.

There are many issues that need to be looked at in making the decision about the gondola. Land ownership, environmental impact, financially feasibility, and access are just some of them.


m.


----------



## MonsterSlayer

The interesting thing about greed is that although the underlying motive is to seek satisfaction, even after obtaining what you want, you still are not satisfied. Its this endless nagging desire for more that leads to trouble. On one hand, if your truly contented, it doesn’t matter whether you get what you want or not. Either way you remain content. 
Dalai Lama


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> You're confusing yourself now. Good for you, you had a disabled friend. Doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head with the inflammatory rhetoric that you have in your posts when people disagree with you about access. You really do need to rethink your use of Hitler when your disagree with people. It severely weakens your position. Perhaps you're too young to be knowledgeable about the Holocaust?
> 
> There's no hardness in my heart I'm all for helping people access the outdoors. Perhaps there are ways to modify the people to be able to participate in outdoor pursuits instead of grossly modifying the environment? Your argument while emotive is not very compelling to most, because it can be applied to everything. A disabled person can't hike the trail up to Angel's landing in Zion. Quick build a tram!! A person can't hike around Powell Plateau. Quick build a wheelchair accessible sidewalk. A person can't get to the top of Everest. Quick build an elevator!! This list of ways the environment needs to be modified to accomodate the disabled is endless; and if all these accomodations were possible the very nature of wilderness would be destroyed.
> 
> These aren't things that disabled people are asking for as they recognize that wilderness can exist that they are unable to access and are fine with it. You're using disability as a tool to strengthen your poor argumentation skills, but it's not working.




Look..,your stated view of 0 acess to handicap...is a cold hearted, abhorrent evil point of view....I stated it was SIMILAR to that of another evil man.....,I did not say or imply you took your abhorrent views regarding the handicap to extreme he did.....but you both share a evil abhorrent outlook when it comes to the handicap.....The truth can be painful..but you're stated views make you a cold heart person in my book.

No hardness in your heart ?. ....your statement...... "Perhaps there are ways to modify the people" shows what a cold hearted person, with no understanding or compassion for the handicap you are ! 

As to my skills at framing a argument on this manner, they are based, on logic, science, and respect for others..,....all items missing in your posts...I will note others here have found my arguments to have these qualities.

You are as incorrect on my skills, as you heart is cold.



GPP33 said:


> Well said yourself Scott. Your logic and reasoning is sound, despite what some here might want to believe.
> 
> Pete


Paddle on

scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Look..,your stated view of 0 acess to handicap...is a cold hearted, abhorrent evil point of view....I stated it was SIMILAR to that of another evil man.....,I did not say or imply you took your abhorrent views regarding the handicap to extreme he did.....but you both share a evil abhorrent outlook when it comes to the handicap.....The truth can be painful..but you're stated views make you a cold heart person in my book.
> 
> No hardness in your heart ?. ....your statement...... "Perhaps there are ways to modify the people" shows what a cold hearted person, with no understanding or compassion for the handicap you are !
> 
> As to my skills at framing a argument on this manner, they are based, on logic, science, and respect for others..,....all items missing in your posts...I will note others here have found my arguments to have these qualities.
> 
> You are as incorrect on my skills, as you heart is cold.
> 
> 
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> scott


Scott, You're very angry and that makes it difficult for you to understand legitimate points made by others. In your posts above you keep saying people are selfish, Hitlers, coldhearterd, etc. Give it a rest. It's makes you look all of five years old in ability to interact with others..

By modifying people, I mean maybe technology should be utilized to help people with disabilities live as normal of lives as possible? This is actually in alignment with best practices in supporting people with disabilities, but you wouldn't know this being uninformed in the area. There are plenty of instances were devices have been designed to allow people to enage in many physical activities that just a few decades ago people could not, being a man of science you should know this.

Anytime you compare someone to Hitler or a point of view to one held by Hitler you exhibit very low level understanding of "logic, science and respect for others," so you'll have to excuse me if I chuckled when I read that part of your post. You'd also recognize how funny that is if you had strong argumentation skills.


----------



## shredder-scott

cataraftgirl said:


> I have no problem with providing access to disabled individuals. I never said that. I myself have a disability that prevents me from enjoying many of the outdoor pursuits I once did. I work with disabled young people every day. What I have a problem with is deeming a business decision as having extra merit because it provides access to the disabled that it is required by law under the ADA to provide. The fact that disabled folks can use the proposed Gondola doesn't mean that it is automatically a good decision or that those who oppose it are selfish or cold hearted. The gondola proposal doesn't get extra bonus points one way or the other just because it provides handicap access.
> 
> There are many issues that need to be looked at in making the decision about the gondola. Land ownership, environmental impact, financially feasibility, and access are just some of them.
> 
> 
> m.


Hi cataraftgirl

In my mind the concept of a gondola providing rim to floor acess is a fundamentally good idea, it is low impact, and provides a great experience to manny different users, not just the handicap, that would be difficult if not impossible for many to duplicate else where in the gc.

I understand you feel the concept has no merit, with or without a benifit to handicap folks.

I shall in that case endeavor to agree to dissagree with you in respectful manner.

I maintain my postion of urging my fellow boaters, not to oppose this project, I maintain there are more postives than negatives to this concept, and we should support this idea.

paddle on

scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Hi cataraftgirl
> <SNIP>
> 
> I shall in that case endeavor to agree to dissagree with you in respectful manner.
> 
> <SNIP>
> paddle on
> 
> scott


Bwahahahaa!! You mean like when you called her selfish in an earlier post?


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Scott, You're very angry and that makes it difficult for you to understand legitimate points made by others. In your posts above you keep saying people are selfish, Hitlers, coldhearterd, etc. Give it a rest. It's makes you look all of five years old in ability to interact with others..
> 
> By modifying people, I mean maybe technology should be utilized to help people with disabilities live as normal of lives as possible? This is actually in alignment with best practices in supporting people with disabilities, but you wouldn't know this being uninformed in the area. There are plenty of instances were devices have been designed to allow people to enage in many physical activities that just a few decades ago people could not, being a man of science you should know this.
> 
> Anytime you compare someone to Hitler or a point of view to one held by Hitler you exhibit very low level understanding of "logic, science and respect for others," so you'll have to excuse me if I chuckled when I read that part of your post. You'd also recognize how funny that is if you had strong argumentation skills.


There are others here who do not share your view regarding my presentation of a argument supporting a gondola. ..you are of course entitled to your view.

Regarding your statement ......" actually in alignment with best practices in supporting people with disabilities, but you wouldn't know this being uninformed " um......perhaps you did not read my post....I have worked with the handicap, on the river, on the snow, with my friend the late, but great Jimmy Heuga, and not disclosed before but with my father a polio survivor..,,.it is not me that uninformed on this issue, it is you !

I wish I could say your posts made me laugh...they fill me sadness, You're stated view, that you have not retracted or modify, that handicap be confined to city and given 0 acess to the outdoors is an abhorrent, evil, cold heart view point....similar to those held by famous evil men...That is a fact !..you don't like being lumped in with those guys...then retract that statement

Paddle on

scott


----------



## swimteam101

Hitler , Worst swim of your life , Selfish , F#%$ you , WOW super hater watch the personal attacks. Internalize Scott.


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> There are others here who do not share your view regarding my presentation of a argument supporting a gondola. ..you are of course entitled to your view.
> 
> Regarding your statement ......" actually in alignment with best practices in supporting people with disabilities, but you wouldn't know this being uninformed " um......perhaps you did not read my post....I have worked with the handicap, on the river, on the snow, with my friend the late, but great Jimmy Heuga, and not disclosed before but with my father a polio survivor..,,.it is not me that uninformed on this issue, it is you !
> 
> I wish I could say your posts made me laugh...they fill me sadness, You're stated view, that you have not retracted or modify, that handicap be confined to city and given 0 acess to the outdoors is an abhorrent, evil, cold heart view point....similar to those held by famous evil men...That is a fact !..you don't like being lumped in with those guys...then retract that statement
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> scott


Scott, Knowing people who are disabled and knowing best practices with relationship to them are two different things. There's nothing for me to retract or modify. There are places that should be wilderness and unfortunately disabled people will not be able to access it. Most disabled people recognize this as the way it is and don't expect us to pave over the world to make the natural wonders of the world accessible for them. 

Keep grasping little fellar. You dug yourself a hole with the Hitler thing. I recognize it's well before your time and you don't realize how horribly destructive event it was to humanity. If you did you'd know better than to call or compare people to Hitler when they have the nerve to point out how silly your self serving arguments are. Ask your mom why it's wrong when you see her for breakfast tomorrow.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the boating community see through your posts. I get it now too, you're too out of shape to hike, boat for extended periods of time, and need an OHV to get around.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Bwahahahaa!! You mean like when you called her selfish in an earlier post?


Hey

To quote cataraftgirl...." support groups like .......that offer real, meaningful, outdoor access and experiences to the disabled ... "

Yes, I find that to be a selfish statement, it impiles that those methods she approves of are the only way to obtain a " real" outdoor experience for the disabled. ...she is incorrect of course, and I maintain that was selfish statement. ..I believe the facts support me.... for a person on oxygen in power wheelchair....that gondola ride is a very real outdoor experience ......her suggestion that it is not....is selfish.

There is no disrespect in that....it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of her statement.

In her next post, she claified and modified her postion, so that this interpretation was no longer vaild. 

To quote a latter post by cataraftgirl " I have no problem with providing access to disabled individuals......The fact that disabled folks can use the proposed Gondola doesn't mean that it is automatically a good decision or that those who oppose it are selfish or cold hearted."

In my next post, I state a new understanding of cataraftgirl postion that is all.

You are accusation is unfounded. 

Paddle on

scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Hey
> 
> To quote cataraftgirl...." support groups like .......that offer real, meaningful, outdoor access and experiences to the disabled ... "
> 
> Yes, I find that to be a selfish statement, it impiles that those methods she approves of are the only way to obtain a " real" outdoor experience for the disabled. ...she is incorrect of course, and I maintain that was selfish statement. ..I believe the facts support me.... for a person on oxygen in power wheelchair....that gondola ride is a very real outdoor experience ......her suggestion that it is not....is selfish.
> 
> There is no disrespect in that....it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of her statement.
> 
> In her next post, she claified and modified her postion, so that this interpretation was no longer vaild.
> 
> To quote a latter post by cataraftgirl " I have no problem with providing access to disabled individuals......The fact that disabled folks can use the proposed Gondola doesn't mean that it is automatically a good decision or that those who oppose it are selfish or cold hearted."
> 
> In my next post, I state a new understanding of cataraftgirl postion that is all.
> 
> You are accusation is unfounded.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> scott


You're doing mental backflips now. Too bad you're only fooling yourself with them. Here's how it goes, everything you disagree with is selfish, in a league with Hitler, cold-hearted, they need to suffer horrible swims, etc. and if you say it's good by golly it is. That's not very strong logic, you think?

You're not doing well here. Is there something in your life causing you so much anger that you need to lash out at people in such a way over an issue where opinions are sure to differ? 

Good luck to you. There's really not much else to discuss with you, because you're not properly equipped to discuss things with people.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Scott, Knowing people who are disabled and knowing best practices with relationship to them are two different things. There's nothing for me to retract or modify. There are places that should be wilderness and unfortunately disabled people will not be able to access it. Most disabled people recognize this as the way it is and don't expect us to pave over the world to make the natural wonders of the world accessible for them.
> 
> Keep grasping little fellar. You dug yourself a hole with the Hitler thing. I recognize it's well before your time and you don't realize how horribly destructive event it was to humanity. If you did you'd know better than to call or compare people to Hitler when they have the nerve to point out how silly your self serving arguments are. Ask your mom why it's wrong when you see her for breakfast tomorrow.
> 
> Fortunately, the vast majority of the boating community see through your posts. I get it now too, you're too out of shape to hike, boat for extended periods of time, and need an OHV to get around.


Hey Marley

here is YOU'RE quote. .... "we have places were physical limitations should be accomodated,. These places are called "cities." Access for all is a compelling argument in cities, but not in the great outdoors.

As I understand you stated postion the handicap should be kept in cities, and 0 accomodations for their access to outdoors should be given.

That is an abhorrent, cold hearted, evil view point.....Similar to those held by other evil men !

You, have refused to point out either I was incorrect in my understanding, or modify your statement. ....

You have continued to suggest I do not understand the needs of the disabled, even after I informed you that I grew up in a household with disabled member.

I maintain my postion, your stated views regarding the disabled, are cold hearted, and evil, your discrimatory view is similar to those propose by famous evil men, and organzations.

You may not like getting lumped in with them....then retract, clarify, or modify your statement so that my understanding of your views is changed.

If, not....I stand by my statement..

Perhaps, growing up in disabled household, and seeing the discrimination, and lack understanding firist hand....has given me a short fuse on this subject.....then again....maybe you're unsympathetic statements regarding the disabled are the real problem here.

Good night....to be continued tomorrow I am sure


Scott


----------



## cataraftgirl

shredder-scott said:


> Hi cataraftgirl
> 
> In my mind the concept of a gondola providing rim to floor acess is a fundamentally good idea, it is low impact, and provides a great experience to manny different users, not just the handicap, that would be difficult if not impossible for many to duplicate else where in the gc.
> 
> I understand you feel the concept has no merit, with or without a benifit to handicap folks.
> 
> I shall in that case endeavor to agree to dissagree with you in respectful manner.
> 
> I maintain my postion of urging my fellow boaters, not to oppose this project, I maintain there are more postives than negatives to this concept, and we should support this idea.
> 
> paddle on
> 
> scott


Hey Scott. Thanks for a thoughtful response. I'm not 100% sure what my position is on this gondola idea. My gut reaction is that it is a tourist attraction meant to make money, just like all the other tourist attractions in the National Parks. I'm not sure that one more is needed. I am skeptical about it's true & lasting impact on how those tourists will view wilderness, conservation, and stewardship of our wild places after their visit. But I can't say with any certainty that it has no merit. I just don't think it has automatic merit solely based on providing access to the disabled or less abled. Access isn't a bad thing, but not the only thing that influences my decision to support something. After spending 3 months in a wheelchair, and 3 more months using a mobility scooter to be able to go back to work, I totally get access issues. But as a person who enjoys wilderness, I also get conservation & impact issues. I have personally never rafted the GC. It's on my bucket list, but not at the top of it. I will get a small taste of the GC in a few weeks when I paddle my kayak from Glen Canyon Dam back to Lees Ferry for a few days. A trip made possible by paying a concessionaire to haul me, my kayak, and my gear upriver on a big motorized pontoon boat that also hauls tourists upriver to see the dam. So I suppose I can't really criticize all of the manmade processes that allow for access into the wilderness???? I just hope if the gondola comes to pass, that it will be built and managed in a responsible manner.

I appreciate your passionate and personal involvement with the disabled population. That's awesome. The disabled kids that I work with need all the champions they can get. I don't think the other posters in this thread are anti-disabled people, cold-hearted, or evil. They just have a different view on wilderness management than you. Neither side is wrong, just different.


----------



## caverdan

Lets not forget that handicap access is only a biproduct of their intentions to build this tram. Does anyone know what the ticket price for admission will be?

The skywalk is based out of Vegas and is close enough for it to draw on customers from there. Do they plan to fly in most of their clients from Vegas too? Will you actually be able to drive in? I see hotels, parking lots and such on the master plan. 

Will rafters be allowed to continue to stop at the Little Colorado?


----------



## duct tape

Wow. Hmmm...

Could I just say "thanks Tom" for the sticker and could I have some more?

- Jon


----------



## richp

Hi Caverdan,

Yup -- from what I see, the business model only works if you fly lots of folks in from Vegas, and maybe Tusayan and Flagstaff. More helicopters and fixed wing takeoffs/landings surely will be part of the package. And all that will be in a context where the Park has been fighting the air tourist industry for years to limit noise and other adverse impacts.

But you hit on another interesting point. If the tribe is successful in asserting ownership down that low (essentially to the high water mark or maybe even to water level), then one has to wonder if they will allow river runners to land and explore up the LCR at all. 

And even if they couldn't control below the high water mark (which is one possible line of demarcation between the Park and the reservation), it still would dramatically change the experience for river folks. The drawings I've seen show the boardwalk and restaurant on the river bank barely elevated above the narrow beach where boats tie up. The restaurant deck would overlook the LCR itself, and the path people take to walk upstream would be right under the gaze of tourists taking their refreshments.

It most certainly would alter the remaining wilderness character of the river at that location.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## caverdan

Rich.....I'm betting that since the people visiting the bottom will only be allowed to walk around on the walk ways......no one will be allowed out of their boats within site of said people.

What if it does go bust? Do they have to reclaim it and try and erase the construction foot print? Will it be left to decay like the hotel in Deso?


----------



## richp

Hi Caverdan,

The fact is, nobody knows. Once stuff like this is put into place, things happen. As an example, the closure of the Deer Creek Narrows is a somewhat different, but sort of similar situation. Tribal concerns resulted in an oft-visited portion of the Deer Creek drainage being put off limits. I once sat on the beach at Nankoweap for 6-7 hours, waiting out of respect for a tribal group worshiping up at the granaries. How long will it be before places like that become the subject of similar moves for closure?

And on restoration, that's the kind of thing that somehow doesn't get addressed in the contractual arrangements. As you point out, it's often left to the laws of nature.

Anyone who has been down the entire run in GC will recall the towers on both sides of the river in connection with the bat cave guano farce. Built in the late 50's, abandoned in the early 60's, they'll stand there for a long time as a monument to elaborate and unrealistic plans gone sour. 

When the project goes bust, you can bet there won't be an intact, ample escrow account waiting to fund restoration to the Canyon's former condition.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## marley

caverdan said:


> Rich.....I'm betting that since the people visiting the bottom will only be allowed to walk around on the walk ways......no one will be allowed out of their boats within site of said people.
> 
> What if it does go bust? Do they have to reclaim it and try and erase the construction foot print? Will it be left to decay like the hotel in Deso?


I'd put money that if such a monstrosity were to be developed most boaters would keep on moving anyways. Kinda like the helipads down by the great toilet bowl in the sky All the action will be so out of sync with the experiences that boaters are looking for.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> You're doing mental backflips now. Too bad you're only fooling yourself with them. .........That's not very strong logic, you think?
> 
> You're not doing well here. Is there something in your life causing you so much anger that you need to lash out at people in such a way over an issue where opinions are sure to differ?
> 
> Good luck to you. There's really not much else to discuss with you, because you're not properly equipped to discuss things with people.


Hum....

It is interesting that cataraftgirl....the poster you have unjustly accused me of being disrespectful to and stated that I am not 'properly equipped to discuss things with" does not share your view.




cataraftgirl said:


> Hey Scott. Thanks for a thoughtful response.
> 
> I appreciate your passionate and personal involvement with the disabled population. That's awesome.


I belive that cataraftgirl is now the second or thrid person, to publicly state, they found my postion to be thoughtful.

Bummer for you that folks here are willing to offer public support for me......yet none seem willing offer public support for your views that the less able be confined to cities, and no access to outdoors be granted to them !

A simple fact that may be beneficial for you to spend some time thinking about..


Scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Hum....
> 
> It is interesting that cataraftgirl....the poster you have unjustly accused me of being disrespectful to and stated that I am not 'properly equipped to discuss things with" does not share your view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I belive that cataraftgirl is now the second or thrid person, to publicly state, they found my postion to be thoughtful.
> 
> Bummer for you that folks here are willing to offer public support for me......yet none seem willing offer public support for your views that the less able be confined to cities, and no access to outdoors be granted to them !
> 
> A simple fact that may be beneficial for you to spend some time thinking about..
> 
> 
> Scott


Scott, now you're intentionally misrepresenting my position. My position is not no access to the disabled. Now as someone who presents himself as a man of science and logic here's a question for you. What logical fallacy are you engaging in your above post?


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Scott, now you're intentionally misrepsenting my post. My position is not no access to the disabled. Now as someone who presents himself as a man of science and logic here's a question for you. What logical fallacy are you engaging in your above post?


Marley

I have stated this same understanding of your postion in multiple prior post, it was the logical foundation for my comments and comparison.

I had asked you to retract, clarify or modify your stated views .....you stated you would not do that........this is the first time you have stated I have incorrect understanding of your views, and stated publicly a new postion in favor of at least some acess for the less able.

Given my understanding of your new postion.... it would be inaccurate, and highly insulting to you for me to maintain my view, regarding your views as being cold hearted, abhorrent ect...

People of good faith can dissagree on what is reasonable access for the less able.

I find your current postion to be a reasonable one.

Thank you restating your postion, and correcting my misunderstanding of your postion. 

Have a nice day

Scott


----------



## marley

shredder-scott said:


> Marley
> 
> I have stated this same understanding of your postion in multiple prior post, it was the logical foundation for my comments and comparison.
> 
> I had asked you to retract, clarify or modify your stated views .....you stated you would not do that........this is the first time you have stated I have incorrect understanding of your views, and stated publicly a new postion in favor of at least some acess for the less able.
> 
> Given my understanding of your new postion.... it would be inaccurate, and highly insulting to you for me to maintain my view, regarding your views as being cold hearted, abhorrent ect...
> 
> People of good faith can dissagree on what is reasonable access for the less able.
> 
> I find your current postion to be a reasonable one.
> 
> Thank you restating your postion, and correcting my misunderstanding of your postion.
> 
> Have a nice day
> 
> Scott


Psst Scott. I didn't change a thing about my views. You just don't understand what you read very well and were hell bent on misrepresenting what I wrote. Go back and read my posts on the topic real s l o w l y and maybe you'll get it.

Still waiting for you to recognize that accusing people of being Nazis is offensive, but won't be holding my breath.


----------



## paulk

Don't worry guys, I pulled a cancellation permit for next Feb. I'll check it out and give my full assessment. That'll end this debate once and for all.


----------



## kayaker

*really?*



shredder-scott said:


> I want the gonola to open...who sells an open the grand to gonola sticke ?
> 
> Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board !
> 
> scott


#WTF?!

Among what you have classified thousands of individuals as, your attitude matches your response. 
One must doubt that you are capable of obtaining such a sticker as you are unable to correctly spell what we have to assume you may have intended.
Mountainbuzz is not only an open-minded forum of discussion, I would defend that your attitude could have you removed for such grotesque name calling and juvenile behaviors.
I would be open to a discussion of tram if you could elucidate points to show reason for mangling a National Treasure and Wonder of the World such as the Colorado River and the Little Colorado River in the Grand Canyon.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Psst Scott. I didn't change a thing about my views. You just don't understand what you read very well and were hell bent on misrepresenting what I wrote. Go back and read my posts on the topic real s l o w l y and maybe you'll get it.
> 
> Still waiting for you to recognize that accusing people of being Nazis is offensive, but won't be holding my breath.




Marley

I read and understand very well thank you...it is spelling and grammer I struggle with.

I suggest you go back and read the posts....I provide the exact quote of yours that I found offensive, and explained why I understood it to be so offensive ....you made no effort until now to correct that mis understanding of your post or views.

Your suggestion that I deliberately misunderstand or misrepsented your views, has no factual foundation. Your refusal to provide requested modification or to clarify your remarks, was problematic.

You can let your breath out..,I agree comparing folks to Nazis is offensive. ..

I found your stated views to be equally offensive, hence the comparison. 

You had many opportunity before now, to point out I did not understand your views correctly. ..you chose not do that till now.

Why did you wait so long to correct my misunderstanding of your views ?

Or perhaps, as you just stated.. " I didn't change a thing about my views" does this statement mean you belive the less able should be confined to cities, and no accomodation should be made so they to can enjoy the outdoors ?

Just what exactly is your postion on this subject ?

Intersting that your accusation regarding the logic and thoughtfulness or my views has been rebuked by others...,but I suppose an acknowledgement of that error on your part, will likly never come.

Scott


----------



## restrac2000

As someone who opposes the Gondola I do have to ask us about the idea of the LCR "being sacred" and our own behavior.

If that is a valid argument then why do we accept rafters tieing up at the confluence for hours; hikers exploring to, on and well past the Sipapu; canyoneers descending its many tributaries; agencies doing biological studies; photographers selling its many hidden gems; etc? 

At some point that argument means we have to self-limit if we believe it is valid enough to restrict other user groups. I was initially against the closure of Deer Creek but eventually came to the conclusion that having a few closures in the GC that benefit marginalized tribal groups is a minimal definition of fair and respectful.

So why not completely advocate of the closure of the LCR to any use, as the sacredness argument would clearly dictate? Wouldn't that provide a far more robust reason to oppose the development? I am able to look past shredder-scott's many indiscretions (ad hominem, hitler ad nauseum, etc) to see that this one element of his critique does seem to hold water.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

richp said:


> Hi Caverdan,
> 
> The fact is, nobody knows. Once stuff like this is put into place, things happen. As an example, the closure of the Deer Creek Narrows is a somewhat different, but sort of similar situation. Tribal concerns resulted in an oft-visited portion of the Deer Creek drainage being put off limits. I once sat on the beach at Nankoweap for 6-7 hours, waiting out of respect for a tribal group worshiping up at the granaries. How long will it be before places like that become the subject of similar moves for closure?
> 
> And on restoration, that's the kind of thing that somehow doesn't get addressed in the contractual arrangements. As you point out, it's often left to the laws of nature.
> 
> Anyone who has been down the entire run in GC will recall the towers on both sides of the river in connection with the bat cave guano farce. Built in the late 50's, abandoned in the early 60's, they'll stand there for a long time as a monument to elaborate and unrealistic plans gone sour.
> 
> When the project goes bust, you can bet there won't be an intact, ample escrow account waiting to fund restoration to the Canyon's former condition.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Assuming that this at some point has to go through the BIA do we know if they require reclamation measures to be in place? I think its a fair expectation for private businesses to have enough capital to clean up their mess when they eventually abandon it (having lived in the SW for a decade now the evidence of that habit is overwhelming). That said, it seems to be inconsistently applied in land management as I have seen plenty of other developments allowed to waste and let nature reclaim.

Its one of the elements of the private enterprise argument that I think is rarely accounted for....making all of the money and then expecting the public to incur the costs and burden of clean up.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Marley
> 
> I read and understand very well thank you...it is spelling and grammer I struggle with.
> 
> I suggest you go back and read the posts....I provide the exact quote of yours that I found offensive, and explained why I understood it to be so offensive ....you made no effort until now to correct that mis understanding of your post or views.
> 
> Your suggestion that I deliberately misunderstand or misrepsented your views, has no factual foundation. Your refusal to provide requested modification or to clarify your remarks, was problematic.
> 
> You can let your breath out..,I agree comparing folks to Nazis is offensive. ..
> 
> I found your stated views to be equally offensive, hence the comparison.
> 
> 
> Scott


Scott, I think you truly care about the subject and want to engage people. That said, you have engaged multiple times in what are known as logical fallacies, some formal and other informal. They not only undermine the content of the idea you present but also tend to discourage dialog from other parties hence their designation and criticism.

As a general rule its best to only critique (or even attack) ideas and not the person. Such an example would be outlining the hypocrisy of a worldview versus calling people hypocrites (people tend to see their behavior and ideas as changeable but will defend their person/self rigorously). Its also best to stay away from inflammatory name name calling and comparisons for which any comparison to "Hitler" is considered the penultimate example. 

Take it or leave it.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

kayaker said:


> #WTF?!
> 
> Among what you have classified thousands of individuals as, your attitude matches your response.
> One must doubt that you are capable of obtaining such a sticker as you are unable to correctly spell what we have to assume you may have intended.
> Mountainbuzz is not only an open-minded forum of discussion, I would defend that your attitude could have you removed for such grotesque name calling and juvenile behaviors.
> I would be open to a discussion of tram if you could elucidate points to show reason for mangling a National Treasure and Wonder of the World such as the Colorado River and the Little Colorado River in the Grand Canyon.


Hi Kayaker

Sorry for my spelling and grammer errors...I unfortunately suffer from a type of dyslexia...please try concentrate on my thoughts....not my silly spelling and grammer errors.

So let state my postion on a gondola into gc for you so we can enter into a discussion of the subject.

1 I find the concept of gondola from the rim to a floor a postive one....it is in my view low impact to the environment and will cause minimal harm to other river users.

2. What is and what is not scared ground is an internal issue for the tribes...not us.

3. I support tribial ownership claims, over fed gov claims

4. I belive a gondola would greatly expand the opportunity for the less able to experience the rim, the wall, and the floor of gc.

5 I believe there are limited opportunities for the less able to experience the gc, that are this low impact....jetboats, planes, helicopters all have much greater negative impacts...and are out of reach for many less able folks....rafts, hikes, donkey rides...are all lower impact ways to experience the gc....but many less able are unable to use these methods.

6 I feel that location chosen is not ideal...it would be best in my mind to keep this type of development in one high density use area, to avoid sprawl, and greater than needed impact on the environment and other users...Unfortunately current rules, and no development groups and individuals make such sensible planning difficult if not impossible. ...hence the build it on a less than ideal private/tribal land push.

7, If this project was completed,..this new acess...should result in lesa need for higher impact acess of jetboat rides...there use could and should be cut back, once a new low impact method for the less able is established.

8 Modern full motion simulators, are very good....the super fun but high impact experience of a jetboat ride, or a below the rim helicopter ride can now be duplicate in full motion simulators. These simulators should be offered as vaild replacement for now banned below rim heli trips...and could be used as justification to reduce...not ban..jet boat trips.

8 I feel that a properly located and designed gondola, would not harm this unique area....just the opposite, it would allow lots of folks to have low impact gc experience, that inculdes the rim, the wall, and the floor...therefor reducing not eleminating the need for other higher impact methods....and that would benifical to all, but the unfortunate jet boat owners .

I look forward to your reply and comments

paddle on

Scott


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

shredder-scott said:


> Marley
> 
> I read and understand very well thank you...it is spelling and grammer I struggle with.


Word Scott! There are waay too many wanta be philosophy majors and English guru's that think they know what they are saying. Because they took a class at the University. Which they likely barely passed with a C-.

Its this attitude that gets put ins closed and access restricted. What do you think the developers are going to do if floaters stop their projects? They get pissed and seek revenge. They have deeper pockets. (ie: Spokane whitewater park and Lochsa Indian graves creek putin)

Plus, The ski lift is a really good idea and I think most people on this forum are pissed because they will never do anything that benefits other people with their lives so they stop progress at any cost and argue the little things. (ie: spelling, logic bs) All while driving gas cars and plastic boats that will go to the land fill while calling me a hypocrite. Anyway I headed to SF Clearwater as soon as my crew shows. Happy Floating.

Let the haters hate. Its what they do best.


----------



## richp

Hi Shredder Scott,

Just to provide an opportunity for you to calibrate a portion of your thinking on this, there are no jet boats operating in this area of the Canyon -- for tours or any other reason. 

Jet boat usage is confined to the lower canyon. Outfitters contract them to pick up passengers from raft trips and speed them to the takeout. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> Scott, I think you truly care about the subject and want to engage people. That said, you have engaged multiple times in what are known as logical fallacies, some formal and other informal. They not only undermine the content of the idea you present but also tend to discourage dialog from other parties hence their designation and criticism.
> 
> As a general rule its best to only critique (or even attack) ideas and not the person. Such an example would be outlining the hypocrisy of a worldview versus calling people hypocrites (people tend to see their behavior and ideas as changeable but will defend their person/self rigorously). Its also best to stay away from inflammatory name name calling and comparisons for which any comparison to "Hitler" is considered the penultimate example.
> 
> Take it or leave it.
> 
> Phillip



Hey Phillip

You have been a voice of a reason...and hence your views warrant respect.

Marleys, stated view that the less able be confined to the cities, and be given no acess to enjoy the outdoor was....well to follow your adivice....deeply troubling and offensive. ..I still feel the comparison of his ideas...to others who also held ugly views regarding the less able was justified, such an extreme view...required an equally extreme response.

Now, onto logical errors in my postions....would you be kind enough to point out a specific example or two....I would like the opportunity to correct any such errors, or at least explain them 

Thanks for the thoughtful critique! 

Paddle on


Scott


----------



## GCHiker4887

*The Proposed Legislation*



restrac2000 said:


> As someone who opposes the Gondola I do have to ask us about the idea of the LCR "being sacred" and our own behavior.
> 
> If that is a valid argument then why do we accept rafters tieing up at the confluence for hours; hikers exploring to, on and well past the Sipapu; canyoneers descending its many tributaries; agencies doing biological studies; photographers selling its many hidden gems; etc?
> 
> At some point that argument means we have to self-limit if we believe it is valid enough to restrict other user groups. I was initially against the closure of Deer Creek but eventually came to the conclusion that having a few closures in the GC that benefit marginalized tribal groups is a minimal definition of fair and respectful.
> 
> So why not completely advocate of the closure of the LCR to any use, as the sacredness argument would clearly dictate? Wouldn't that provide a far more robust reason to oppose the development? I am able to look past shredder-scott's many indiscretions (ad hominem, hitler ad nauseum, etc) to see that this one element of his critique does seem to hold water.
> 
> Phillip


Hi Phillip-
I do not believe the Navajo want to restrict access to the area. It is a fact that the Developers are using the boating community and their presence there as a point of why the Confluence should be closed. They say drunken debauchery runs amok.... Some rafting parties both commercial and private typically float the lower LCR with PFD 'diapers'. Some of the local tribes find this offensive and some trips have stopped this practice in deference to the tribes. Again, knowing some of the STC folks, they do not want to close access to the area. The private boating community does need to self-police and be respectful. Not sharing pictures of the Sipapu for instance. Taking our ropes out of the Deer Creek Falls....

There are a few other parts of this discussion that have been left out while the discussion mainly focused on disabled access. As Caverdan (I believe) noted, disabled access is a byproduct. It is a good argument to sway people on the fence by using the 'access for all' argument. One can note that ADA does not require access to wilderness. That's just a fact. However, lots of the paved trails on the South Rim are suitable for wheelchair access, so I can't buy into this argument. Some places are just not conducive to those with disabilities. That's just the way it is.

The boundary issue notwithstanding, the piece that is worth reading here is the actual proposed legislation. I have read it several times and dissected it item by item. This calls for a substantial initial investment by the Navajo Tribe. They are responsible for all of the road right of way and the infrastructure to the site. They are asked to pony up over $60 million up front. If they can't pull the money together, then Confluence Partners will gladly negotiate a loan and terms on their behalf. There are countless other terms that are not good for the Navajo, but good for the developer. CP will control the leases on the site. The agreement is ripe for exploitation by the CP.

The other piece of this is what the tribe gets in return. This is a tiered profit sharing deal based on annual visitation. As the number of paying customers increase, so does the share to the Navajo. The max is 18% if over 2 million people visit in a year. That's 5500 People a day. Could you imagine? $18 of every hundred dollars to exploit their land? $82 back to the CP.... Oh wait, Navajo Nation also has to pay into an escrow fund for repairs and expansions, so this potential 18% is further eroded. Sounds like the golden goose right?

The other thing that sticks out to me is the non-compete provisions. This would give the CP the SOLE right to sell goods and services. The local Navajo would NOT have the ability to sell their goods and wares on the road in or at the development.

Finally, there is no provision that CP actually has to hire Navajos.

It is an initial 25 year lease term with (2) automatic 25 year renewals....

Again, this development just makes a few people richer, while the rest of the tribe gets between 8-18% depending on visitation.

There are lots of other items that can be ferreted out of the proposed 'deal'. Here is a link to it if you are interested. 

http://savetheconfluence.com/wpv2/w...nEscaladeProjectWAttachmentsDec_11_2014-1.pdf


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey Phillip
> 
> You have been a voice of a reason...and hence your views warrant respect.
> 
> Now, onto logical errors in my postions....would you be kind enough to point out a specific example or two....I would like the opportunity to correct any such errors, or at least explain them
> 
> Thanks for the thoughtful critique!
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> Scott


The two examples I provided were the most evident. Attacking someone is called ad hominem, hence why I elaborated on calling out the hypocrisy of an idea versus calling people or an entire community hypocrites 



> Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board !


The hitler ad nasuem fallacy, also just goes by Hitler Card, is best summarized as thus



> According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent


It serves no benefit to the conversation and has historically, as it has here, derailed the principle content of the conversation. It makes it about the people instead of the argument. It is possible to use it as a means to logically defend an argument but its fair to say most of us internet dwellers have never likely seen that. Comparing a different viewpoint about development or disabled access to Hitler and Nazi's ignores the nuance of scale that is important to using it effectively ( its maybe best to only fall back on that comparison for genocide and epic types of true governmental fascism). 

There are more effective, logical ways (ones that keep it to the topic at hand) to defend disabled access in wild places.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

GCHiker4887 said:


> Hi Phillip-
> I do not believe the Navajo want to restrict access to the area. It is a fact that the Developers are using the boating community and their presence there as a point of why the Confluence should be closed. They say drunken debauchery runs amok.... Some rafting parties both commercial and private typically float the lower LCR with PFD 'diapers'. Some of the local tribes find this offensive and some trips have stopped this practice in deference to the tribes. Again, knowing some of the STC folks, they do not want to close access to the area. The private boating community does need to self-police and be respectful. Not sharing pictures of the Sipapu for instance. Taking our ropes out of the Deer Creek Falls....
> 
> There are a few other parts of this discussion that have been left out while the discussion mainly focused on disabled access. As Caverdan (I believe) noted, disabled access is a byproduct. It is a good argument to sway people on the fence by using the 'access for all' argument. One can note that ADA does not require access to wilderness. That's just a fact. However, lots of the paved trails on the South Rim are suitable for wheelchair access, so I can't buy into this argument. Some places are just not conducive to those with disabilities. That's just the way it is.
> 
> The boundary issue notwithstanding, the piece that is worth reading here is the actual proposed legislation. I have read it several times and dissected it item by item. This calls for a substantial initial investment by the Navajo Tribe. They are responsible for all of the road right of way and the infrastructure to the site. They are asked to pony up over $60 million up front. If they can't pull the money together, then Confluence Partners will gladly negotiate a loan and terms on their behalf. There are countless other terms that are not good for the Navajo, but good for the developer. CP will control the leases on the site. The agreement is ripe for exploitation by the CP.
> 
> The other piece of this is what the tribe gets in return. This is a tiered profit sharing deal based on annual visitation. As the number of paying customers increase, so does the share to the Navajo. The max is 18% if over 2 million people visit in a year. That's 5500 People a day. Could you imagine? $18 of every hundred dollars to exploit their land? $82 back to the CP.... Oh wait, Navajo Nation also has to pay into an escrow fund for repairs and expansions, so this potential 18% is further eroded. Sounds like the golden goose right?
> 
> The other thing that sticks out to me is the non-compete provisions. This would give the CP the SOLE right to sell goods and services. The local Navajo would NOT have the ability to sell their goods and wares on the road in or at the development.
> 
> Finally, there is no provision that CP actually has to hire Navajos.
> 
> It is an initial 25 year lease term with (2) automatic 25 year renewals....
> 
> Again, this development just makes a few people richer, while the rest of the tribe gets between 8-18% depending on visitation.
> 
> There are lots of other items that can be ferreted out of the proposed 'deal'. Here is a link to it if you are interested.
> 
> http://savetheconfluence.com/wpv2/w...nEscaladeProjectWAttachmentsDec_11_2014-1.pdf


I am largely against the development for the reasons in your comment on top of the lack of transparency.

I am unwilling to skirt the issues of "sacredness" in such an easy way. Its being ignored by the very opponents who remain extremely vocal. I think its great that more groups are becoming aware of how their behavior fits into the larger puzzle. That said, if the LCR is so "sacred" than why do we not self-limit in a substantial way? That argument has some important implications for how we recreate or interact with the drainage. It implies a reverence, preservation and approach that I rarely see with the many adventurers in the Grand. I have no doubt many people perceive it that way and its a valid rationale, hence my question.

The Deer Creek example is prime. We didn't self-regulate; we were kicked out. Hundreds of people still visit that spot each day during the prime season and I doubt most of them approach it with any reverence. I sat there for hours while my group hiked it in 2013 and it was more a theme park ambiance than sacred site ritual.

If we are going to invoke the sacred to oppose this development than we have to inventory how we might ourselves behave in a profane manner. And not just the low hanging fruit of eliminating the drunken debauchery that happens on many private trips in these areas.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

GCHiker4887 said:


> Hi Phillip-
> I do not believe the Navajo want to restrict access to the area. It is a fact that the Developers are using the boating community and their presence there as a point of why the Confluence should be closed. They say drunken debauchery runs amok.... Some rafting parties both commercial and private typically float the lower LCR with PFD 'diapers'. Some of the local tribes find this offensive and some trips have stopped this practice in deference to the tribes. Again, knowing some of the STC folks, they do not want to close access to the area. The private boating community does need to self-police and be respectful. Not sharing pictures of the Sipapu for instance. Taking our ropes out of the Deer Creek Falls....
> 
> There are a few other parts of this discussion that have been left out while the discussion mainly focused on disabled access. As Caverdan (I believe) noted, disabled access is a byproduct. It is a good argument to sway people on the fence by using the 'access for all' argument. One can note that ADA does not require access to wilderness. That's just a fact. However, lots of the paved trails on the South Rim are suitable for wheelchair access, so I can't buy into this argument. Some places are just not conducive to those with disabilities. That's just the way it is.
> 
> The boundary issue notwithstanding, the piece that is worth reading here is the actual proposed legislation. I have read it several times and dissected it item by item. This calls for a substantial initial investment by the Navajo Tribe. They are responsible for all of the road right of way and the infrastructure to the site. They are asked to pony up over $60 million up front. If they can't pull the money together, then Confluence Partners will gladly negotiate a loan and terms on their behalf. There are countless other terms that are not good for the Navajo, but good for the developer. CP will control the leases on the site. The agreement is ripe for exploitation by the CP.
> 
> The other piece of this is what the tribe gets in return. This is a tiered profit sharing deal based on annual visitation. As the number of paying customers increase, so does the share to the Navajo. The max is 18% if over 2 million people visit in a year. That's 5500 People a day. Could you imagine? $18 of every hundred dollars to exploit their land? $82 back to the CP.... Oh wait, Navajo Nation also has to pay into an escrow fund for repairs and expansions, so this potential 18% is further eroded. Sounds like the golden goose right?
> 
> The other thing that sticks out to me is the non-compete provisions. This would give the CP the SOLE right to sell goods and services. The local Navajo would NOT have the ability to sell their goods and wares on the road in or at the development.
> 
> Finally, there is no provision that CP actually has to hire Navajos.
> 
> It is an initial 25 year lease term with (2) automatic 25 year renewals....
> 
> Again, this development just makes a few people richer, while the rest of the tribe gets between 8-18% depending on visitation.
> 
> There are lots of other items that can be ferreted out of the proposed 'deal'. Here is a link to it if you are interested.
> 
> http://savetheconfluence.com/wpv2/w...nEscaladeProjectWAttachmentsDec_11_2014-1.pdf


If the tribe wants to enter into, what by your description is clearly a bad deal....that is their privilege!, and right.

You have not claimed to member of the tribe....so it would seem to be repectful to the tribe to stay out of their internal policy turmoil unless invited in....,have you received such an invite from the tribal leaders ?

Scott


----------



## GCHiker4887

shredder-scott said:


> If the tribe wants to enter into, what by your description is clearly a bad deal....that is their privilege!, and right.
> 
> You have not claimed to member of the tribe....so it would seem to be repectful to the tribe to stay out of their internal policy turmoil unless invited in....,have you received such an invite from the tribal leaders ?
> 
> Scott


I have received an invitation from the tribal members that oppose this development to give my PROFESSIONAL opinion on the terms of the legislation as it relates to development and contracting. I have given a lengthy opinion to them of what I believe is contained in the contract (that's what this is) and how it relates to what I do everyday (contracting, management and development). So yes, I was invited to give a professional opinion by leaders within the opposition group. I gave them some subjective opinions to use.

To add some context to this, if I enterred into this contract in my professional life, I would not only be doing my clients a disservice, I wouldn't have a job for very long, if my client was the tribe. This is bad business.


----------



## richp

Hi,

Setting aside everything else, I have said before that I don't see how the business model works for this. 

Look at the claims of 5,500 people visiting per day, for instance. Over on the west end of the Canyon, you have the Skywalk -- itself a highly contentious project that has mired the Hualapai in litigation for years. They claim to have 2,000 visitors per day Grand Canyon Skywalk Information | Papillon And that's for a location that is much closer to Vegas by plane. 

But let's look at the broad picture on visitation, upon which the revenue projections would be based. Suppose for a minute that each gondola held 25 people. A 5,500 person visitation projection would call for 220 gondola trips a day. And let's suppose that each gondola cycle (down and up, loading and unloading) takes 15 minutes. Generously calculate a year-round average of 10 hours of daily operation, and you have 40 trips a day, or 1,000 people to the bottom -- not 5,500. Let's say I'm way off, and double the size of the gondola. You still get only 2,000 people a day going down.

Now some would say, "Well, lots of folks will come just to look." It's true that the view into the Canyon there is unique and beautiful. It's also true that you can see something like that for free from the South Rim within the Park, without driving a great distance from the main road in Cameron. It's also true that some unknown number of people in Vegas will be sold on the idea and fly in. But that is also a portion of the demographic that goes to the Skywalk, which is drawing only a couple thousand (if you actually believe that number). 

(It occurs to me as I write, that if this project went through, another big loser would be the Hualapai tribe, because the Escalade might cannibalize a noticeable portion of their customer traffic.)

Shredder Scott is right, in that the initial decision is going to be, and should be, made by the tribe. In that connection, one would hope that calm heads in tribal headquarters would carefully examine the representations made by the Confluence Partners, because I sense a great potential for exploitation -- as mentioned by others. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> If the tribe wants to enter into, what by your description is clearly a bad deal....that is their privilege!, and right.
> 
> You have not claimed to member of the tribe....so it would seem to be repectful to the tribe to stay out of their internal policy turmoil unless invited in....,have you received such an invite from the tribal leaders ?
> 
> Scott


Save The Confluence is a movement by members of the tribe to solicit outside help. The developers have also done the same with their ad/education campaign. Its been part of the larger public arena for a while now. I myself vocalized resistance to the issue last summer because the link originated from the outside and used some dangerous language. The Save The Confluence website and campaign was then brought to the surface at MountainBuzz as an example of internal dissent. 

At the same time, wouldn't it be fair to say the developers should never have solicited the tribe according to your philosophy? This wasn't an internal plan but one by a private Arizona corporation. I ask as you have pointed out the issue of consistency and hypocrisy in statements. There is no logical foundation to call out oppositional groups while supporting the privilege of private companies to the exact same thing. 

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

GCHiker4887 said:


> I have received an invitation from the tribal members that oppose this development to give my PROFESSIONAL opinion on the terms of the legislation as it relates to development and contracting. I have given a lengthy opinion to them of what I believe is contained in the contract (that's what this is) and how it relates to what I do everyday (contracting, management and development). So yes, I was invited to give a professional opinion by leaders within the opposition group. I gave them some subjective opinions to use.
> 
> To add some context to this, if I enterred into this contract in my professional life, I would not only be doing my clients a disservice, I wouldn't have a job for very long, if my client was the tribe. This is bad business.


Great

I hope you are effective in helping the tribe get both a fair deal to consider, and to help the tribe come together once deal is accepted or rejected. 

Scott


----------



## restrac2000

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> Setting aside everything else, I have said before that I don't see how the business model works for this.
> 
> Look at the claims of 5,500 people visiting per day, for instance. Over on the west end of the Canyon, you have the Skywalk -- itself a highly contentious project that has mired the Hualapai in litigation for years. They claim to have 2,000 visitors per day Grand Canyon Skywalk Information | Papillon And that's for a location that is much closer to Vegas by plane.
> 
> But let's look at the broad picture on visitation, upon which the revenue projections would be based. Suppose for a minute that each gondola held 25 people. A 5,500 person visitation projection would call for 220 gondola trips a day. And let's suppose that each gondola cycle (down and up, loading and unloading) takes 15 minutes. Generously calculate a year-round average of 10 hours of daily operation, and you have 40 trips a day, or 1,000 people to the bottom -- not 5,500. Let's say I'm way off, and double the size of the gondola. You still get only 2,000 people a day going down.
> 
> Now some would say, "Well, lots of folks will come just to look." It's true that the view into the Canyon there is unique and beautiful. It's also true that you can see something like that for free from the South Rim within the Park, without driving a great distance from the main road in Cameron. It's also true that some unknown number of people in Vegas will be sold on the idea and fly in. But that is also a portion of the demographic that goes to the Skywalk, which is drawing only a couple thousand (if you actually believe that number).
> 
> (It occurs to me as I write, that if this project went through, another big loser would be the Hualapai tribe, because the Escalade might cannibalize a noticeable portion of their customer traffic.)
> 
> Shredder Scott is right, in that the initial decision is going to be, and should be, made by the tribe. In that connection, one would hope that calm heads in tribal headquarters would carefully examine the representations made by the Confluence Partners, because I sense a great potential for exploitation -- as mentioned by others.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Thank you for your posts. I find them thoughtful and continuously accurate. I will say I figure the gondola can handle a lot more traffic than your numbers expose as I doubt they will be limited to a cable with one gondola attached. Modern cabled services can handle a dozen or more actual gondolas at a time and are actually more efficient at doing so. That said, the cost of installing and operating such machinery can be quite expensive. Their model is not exactly transparent so its hard to evaluate what their actual plan requires, from machinery to how they will operate the machinery (continuous cycling, demand based operation, etc). Thy idea is so much more complicated (and therefor expensive) than the relative independence of helicopter and pontoon travel in the western grand. 

Phillip


----------



## richp

Hi Phillip,

You're right about the potential for gondolas to handle a lot more traffic. I was supposing two actual gondola cars, but don't really have a good handle on the linear distances/speeds involved. 

Regardless, I think the limiting factor would be on the bottom.

If you look at the renderings and other promotional materials, you see a receiving bay at the bottom, a boardwalk a bit above the river, and a restaurant/bathroom/observation area very near the actual confluence of the two rivers. Suppose you could move 550 people an hour down the line -- the rough number for a ten hour day. How would that relatively small space at the bottom accommodate them? How many would be strolling at any time? How many would be eating and drinking? How many would be wanting to use the toilets? Would you impose a time limit on people, so they don't clog up the area, which, after all, is really rather small. 

There may be answers to all this that are not evident to me. But I personally think this is hugely impractical at best, and borderline fraudulent at worst. 

FWIW.

Rich Philliips


----------



## marley

restrac2000 said:


> The two examples I provided were the most evident. Attacking someone is called ad hominem, hence why I elaborated on calling out the hypocrisy of an idea versus calling people or an entire community hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> The hitler ad nasuem fallacy, also just goes by Hitler Card, is best summarized as thus
> 
> 
> 
> It serves no benefit to the conversation and has historically, as it has here, derailed the principle content of the conversation. It makes it about the people instead of the argument. It is possible to use it as a means to logically defend an argument but its fair to say most of us internet dwellers have never likely seen that. Comparing a different viewpoint about development or disabled access to Hitler and Nazi's ignores the nuance of scale that is important to using it effectively ( its maybe best to only fall back on that comparison for genocide and epic types of true governmental fascism).
> 
> There are more effective, logical ways (ones that keep it to the topic at hand) to defend disabled access in wild places.
> 
> Phillip


You forgot to mention the other logical fallacy that he seems to think carries any weight. The old "many others agree with me" also known as an appeal to majority. I you 'd like Scott I can explain to you why this is a fallacy or you can do your own leg work an google it.

There you go Scott. Someone laid out the logical fallacies in your arguments for you that you apparently didn't learn in high school.


----------



## Maxident

dirtbagkayaker said:


> I think most people on this forum are pissed because they will never do anything that benefits other people with their lives


Wow. And you accused me of resorting to simple attacks. And here I am getting paid shit money so I can use my degree in Mathematics to teach underprivileged kids in Guatemala. Like I said- you don't know anything about any of us. Just putting us all in a box.


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> You forgot to mention the other logical falmisrepresentingt he seems to think carries any weight. The old "many others agree with me" also known as an appeal to majority. I you 'd like Scott I can explain to you why this is a fallacy or you can do your own leg work an google it.
> 
> There you go Scott. Someone laid out the logical fallacies in your arguments for you that you apparently didn't learn in high school.


Hey Marley

Intersting that you claim to know such much about my educational background. How is it you were able to obtain a inaccurate copy of my hs transcripts that show I even took logic in hs....For the record....I took logic in college, not hs.....I think I got a B in the class.

I never made a "many others agree with me " therefore I am right argument....you are misrepresenting my remarks. 

I think what you may be refering to, are my citing of other buzz members who found my postions to be thoughtful and logical to counter your unsupported views they were not....I thought cataraftgirls comments were very effective to counter your false claims that I was disrespectful to her, and unable to have a thoughtful exchange of views with her.

But...I guess you know her views and feelings better than she does....that does seem kinda of egotistical on your part though.

Yep, I used an extreme example to counter what I understood to be your extreme postion that accomadations for the less able should be limited to within a city.

Also, I requested Philip share the logical errors in my reasoning with me, he claimed to have identified ...He has yet to do that...he pointed out 2 areas will my postions statement, could reasonably be viewed as being less than cordial that is all....he as you have yet to identify a single logic error in my deductions and reasoning .

Perhaps you were asleep or never took a class in logic....I do not know....but you confuse logic, with being cordial

Since you seem to have problem telling the two apart he is a simple example of a logical error. 

Study show that over 95% of college students take an english class...therefor english must be a very popular subject among college students.

That is an example of a logical cause and effect error.

Logic is not a simple skill to master....

I still wait for you to point out a logic error in my posts.....remember that is different than politeness error.

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott

richp said:


> Hi Phillip,
> 
> You're right about the potential for gondolas to handle a lot more traffic. I was supposing two actual gondola cars, but don't really have a good handle on the linear distances/speeds involved.
> 
> Regardless, I think the limiting factor would be on the bottom.
> 
> If you look at the renderings and other promotional materials, you see a receiving bay at the bottom, a boardwalk a bit above the river, and a restaurant/bathroom/observation area very near the actual confluence of the two rivers. Suppose you could move 550 people an hour down the line -- the rough number for a ten hour day. How would that relatively small space at the bottom accommodate them? How many would be strolling at any time? How many would be eating and drinking? How many would be wanting to use the toilets? Would you impose a time limit on people, so they don't clog up the area, which, after all, is really rather small.
> 
> There may be answers to all this that are not evident to me. But I personally think this is hugely impractical at best, and borderline fraudulent at worst.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Philliips


Hey Rich

A tram system has 2 cars, that pass each other in the middle...the cars stop at each end, and then reverse their course....they do not loop around the ends....Tram cars tend to hold between 50 -150+ folks standing. Trams are able traverse much greater distance both vertical and horizontal without as many tower supports that a gondola would require. 

A gondola system is series of small cars, that are closely spaced...they do not stop for loading like a tram....they detach from the high speed pull cable to slow up for loading...they make a loop at the top and bottom...gondola cars typically hold 4-8 passengers and have bench type seating. ...they are high speed, high volume people moving machines. 

Just....thought we should we be accurate about how gondolas, and tram system differ for this discussion. 

Paddle on

scott


----------



## restrac2000

Ad hominem is a legitimate logical fallacy, though one best described as informal. Its not about decorum, though that is a fair critique, but about its role in plays in dialog and conclusions. 

Why skirt that truth? I directly quoted the ad hominem attack.

And if we really want to dork out we can highlight the straw man arguments you built in using the ad hominem and also the hitler comparison. Multiple times you have exaggerated the position of other users. Just one:



> Hey Phillip
> 
> I agree with your definition of hypocrisy.
> 
> I feel that those opposed to project, would quickly support it, IF it was a benifit to them......If this project allowed boaters acess to river, where there was no other convient entry ....they would be all for it....



Your worldview and position is just fine, even if it runs counter to the values of others. Why undermine it with attacks and fallacious statements? Especially as you have tried to call out similar behavior in others (who have unfairly demonized your stance).

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey Rich
> 
> A tram system has 2 cars, that pass each other in the middle...the cars stop at each end, and then reverse their course....they do not loop around the ends....Tram cars tend to hold between 50 -150+ folks standing. Trams are able traverse much greater distance both vertical and horizontal without as many tower supports that a gondola would require.
> 
> A gondola system is series of small cars, that are closely spaced...they do not stop for loading like a tram....they detach from the high speed pull cable to slow up for loading...they make a loop at the top and bottom...gondola cars typically hold 4-8 passengers and have bench type seating. ...they are high speed, high volume people moving machines.
> 
> Just....thought we should we be accurate about how gondolas, and tram system differ for this discussion.
> 
> Paddle on
> 
> scott


Do we know which one it is? In the map and legend at the Escalade homepage it has a "tram station" but in the description it says "The Escalade gondola tramway". Hmmm.

I apologize if I made the language less precise, which is what Rich P was responding to. I have heard it called both and while there may be a technical difference with engineers I know most folks in the ski industry use the terms interchangeably, at least on the lay side. 

Edit: Oops, found this. Its technically a gondola, though limited in number. That should help solidifying the numbers though. 

Grand Canyon Escalade “Gondola Tramway” | Grand Canyon Escalade


----------



## dirtbagkayaker

Maxident said:


> Wow. And you accused me of resorting to simple attacks. And here I am getting paid shit money so I can use my degree in Mathematics to teach underprivileged kids in Guatemala. Like I said- you don't know anything about any of us. Just putting us all in a box.



Haters hate! If you felt like that was aimed at you then you would know yourself best. So, go ahead a lace up that perfectly fitting shoe and wear it out. 

But in reality, I could give a rats ### about this. I'm just a little more open minded about this kinda stuff than you are. So you can go ahead and have the last word, cuz in 1 hour I'm headed to the river and youre gona still be all butt hurt about this posting on the buzz. I think you could find something a little more productive with life. Don't you? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> Ad hominem is a legitimate logical fallacy, though one best described as informal. Its not about decorum, though that is a fair critique, but about its role in plays in dialog and conclusions.
> 
> Why skirt that truth? I directly quoted the ad hominem attack.
> 
> And if we really want to dork out we can highlight the straw man arguments you built in using the ad hominem and also the hitler comparison. Multiple times you have exaggerated the position of other users.
> 
> You are trying to support an outside opinion


Not trying to skirt around any truth.

What outside opinion am I trying to support ? 

I dissagree that my statement " Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board ! " qualifies as ad hominem logical error.

It was a statement, not part of any logical argument I was making....Further it was basied on multiple buzzards comments that expressed total opposition to the extraction use industry, while happily using the fruits of this industry to boat....ie rubber rafts, plastic boats, fuel to get the river and run shuttle ect....my statement was an observation basied on what I perceived to very hypocritical statements by a number of buzzards.....there was no logical error in how that statement was developed.

It was simple factual statement. ...what constitutes a " bunch" is unclear....but I did not state or use the terms, most, all, marjority ect....If I had that would have been a logical error not support by the facts....a bunch tends to mean more than 3....and there were more than 3 buzzards that had expressed that view.

No, I am sorry, but I do not feel that statement qualifies as a logical error of any type, in either its use, or how it was developed from the statement of other buzzards

scott


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Not trying to skirt around any truth.
> 
> What outside opinion am I trying to support ?
> 
> I dissagree that my statement " Bunch of elitist hypocrites on this board ! " qualifies as ad hominem logical error.
> 
> It was a statement, not part of any logical argument I was making....Further it was basied on multiple buzzards comments that expressed total opposition to the extraction use industry, while happily using the fruits of this industry to boat....ie rubber rafts, plastic boats, fuel to get the river and run shuttle ect....my statement was an observation basied on what I perceived to very hypocritical statements by a number of buzzards.....there was no logical error in how that statement was developed.
> 
> It was simple factual statement. ...what constitutes a " bunch" is unclear....but I did not state or use the terms, most, all, marjority ect....If I had that would have been a logical error not support by the facts....a bunch tends to mean more than 3....and there were more than 3 buzzards that had expressed that view.
> 
> No, I am sorry, but I do not feel that statement qualifies as a logical error of any type, in either its use, or how it was developed from the statement of other buzzards
> 
> scott


Sorry for unfinished sentence. I hit submit button instead of "preview post", which I often use as its better for me to edit with. I changed and edited the post since that incomplete comment was made. Sorry for it.

We will disagree about your use of the "elitist hypocrites" attack. You used it multiple times and it seemed like a foundational statement to your deconstruction of oppositional voices. How I understand logical fallacies is that sometimes affect matters as much as intent. 

So it goes. I will say if you have any goal of persuading others and doing so through claims of logic than you will be best served by ending such styles of communication. It derails the conversation and closes people off to your feedback. I relied on my previous interactions with you to get past the inflammatory Hitler comment, I am not sure I will be so lenient twice (and to clarify, I have mostly learned to ignore commentors like Randdaddy who seem to primarily comment in trollish fashions; I therefor ignored your insult to him as I think his behavior was provocative and trolling often seeks out that type of reaction). I would think people ignoring your comments would be counter productive to your ideas and intentions, but I could be wrong. 

Best of luck.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> (and to clarify, I have mostly learned to ignore commentors like Randdaddy who seem to primarily comment in trollish fashions; I therefor ignored your insult to him as I think his behavior was provocative and trolling often seeks out that type of reaction). I would think people ignoring your comments would be counter productive to your ideas and intentions, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Best of luck.
> 
> Phillip


Hi philip

Thank you for the benifit or doubt you have extended to me, and your thoughtful critique. 

I must defend Randaddy. ...he was gracious in accepting my public apology to him, and even admitted he was being provocative with me.

It is unlikly Randaddy and I will ever agree on ohv use....but we have agreed to disagree in respectful manner in the future, and are hoping to share, a beer or two, after a joint r2 trip if possible this summer. 

You have been kind to extend the benfit of doubt to me....I have no standing to make this request of you..,.but I will....Give the guy another chance....I have.

I also appreciate your public statement regarding some of the unfair attacks that have come my way...thanks

paddle on

scott


----------



## Maxident

dirtbagkayaker said:


> Haters hate! If you felt like that was aimed at you then you would know yourself best. So, go ahead a lace up that perfectly fitting shoe and wear it out.
> 
> But in reality, I could give a rats ### about this. I'm just a little more open minded about this kinda stuff than you are. So you can go ahead and have the last word, cuz in 1 hour I'm headed to the river and youre gona still be all butt hurt about this posting on the buzz. I think you could find something a little more productive with life. Don't you? :lol::lol::lol:


Ah ok. Got it. Now that we know you don't actually care about this issue, I (and probably everyone else in this thread) won't need to take anything you say with any merit. And here I was looking for some sort of educated discussion on the matter. Now, while my mind is set, I'm still interested to see the other side of the argument. 

This issue is hugely important to me. Getting informed and putting in my input, to me, is more productive than a kayak session or whatever it is you're going to the river for. Less fun, but productive. At least Scott has some interesting ideas...

Scott, I disagree with most of the points you made. However, outside the Hitler and hypocrite statements, it was nice to see the flip side. Thanks for putting some thought into it and giving a rats ### about this. Just be careful how it's delivered. As we can see with DBK, it can distract us from the issue.


----------



## richp

Hi,

Well somehow I've missed (more likely forgotten) that page with the tram detail. 

''The Tramway will have eight-person gondolas, which will take an estimated 8 to 10 minutes from the rim of the Canyon to the Canyon floor. The length of the Tramway will be approximately 1.4 miles (2.25 kilometers) with about a 3,200 foot (975 meters) descent." 

While this is a bit more illuminating, it still doesn't help without knowing how many gondolas will be on the loop. I'll play with it....

Use ten minutes as the one-way transit time, 20 minutes round trip, so one 8-person car can make three full trips an hour, and 30 full trips every average 10-hour day. Multiply times 7 per gondola car (you can't assume a 100% load factor all day) and you get 210 people per gondola car per day. Divide that into your claim of 5,500 visitors per day, and you need 26 gondola cars. That's a gondola car every 200 yards or so on the cables. May be practical, may not be -- I'm not an engineer -- just pointing it out. 

One might also fiddle a bit with the assumption that you're going to average 5,500 per day. That means slow days in the middle of winter you'll have lots fewer, and in spring, summer, and fall, there would have to be vastly greater numbers. So the tram actually would have to be much more tightly populated with gondola cars to accommodate the overages that allow a 5,500 person average. At some point these become engineering and cost questions that are beyond me, but they are real factors to consider.

If you work the numbers from another angle, putting even the average of 500+ people down there every hour (to achieve the projected daily visitor figure) doesn't seem practical from a river-level congestion point of view. And as noted above, in some seasons the facilities at river level would be called upon to deal with spectacularly higher visitor densities -- again something that just doesn't seem possible. What are you going to do -- limit people to 10 minutes at the bottom, and then round them up and hustle them them back into a gondola? Not likely...

Even if I'm off by some modest amount in my little brainstorming exercise, surely this and other discrepancies are obvious to those involved in evaluating the proposed project. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## shredder-scott

Hey Rich

They can space gondola, a lot closer than one every 200 yards.

Also I think you made an incorrect assumption, in your calculations....In my experience it is highly unlikely the gondola will be able to run nonstop for anything close to a full day.....they stop and restart a lot....the reasons very for the stops and restarts...but I would guess that between 20 and 30 % of my gondola trips have had a stop..restart...and stops of 3-5 minutes are common. 

Scott


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hi philip
> 
> Thank you for the benifit or doubt you have extended to me, and your thoughtful critique.
> 
> I must defend Randaddy. ...he was gracious in accepting my public apology to him, and even admitted he was being provocative with me.
> 
> It is unlikly Randaddy and I will ever agree on ohv use....but we have agreed to disagree in respectful manner in the future, and are hoping to share, a beer or two, after a joint r2 trip if possible this summer.
> 
> You have been kind to extend the benfit of doubt to me....I have no standing to make this request of you..,.but I will....Give the guy another chance....I have.
> 
> I also appreciate your public statement regarding some of the unfair attacks that have come my way...thanks
> 
> paddle on
> 
> scott


hehe, I still read Randdaddy's stuff and I have learned from a handful of his posts. There are very few people here that I have placed on the "ignore list" and probably spend more time than I should reading the various opinions of members. As someone who undoubtedly ruffles feathers I assume most people on this forum are good folk who maybe just cater towards a different online personality.

I tend to fall into the camp that I learn more when I engage people with differing views, hence my engagement with your ideas. Its made me investigate the issues more and inventory why I have certain preferences. After living in Utah for a decade I have developed a noticeable respect for lifestyles and world views that sharply differ from my own. Living amongst within LDS plurality as a non-member and then watching how mainstream media represents them has taught me a lot of compassion (not sure that always comes across in my communication). I see a lot of parallel in how the environmental movement creates narratives and images of opposition (its actually an interesting framework for any cross-user group interaction). 

I have different goals than you state but I can understand and respect how each of us lands in different places in life. 

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

marley said:


> Scott,
> 
> Keep grasping little fellar.
> 
> you're too out of shape to hike, boat for extended periods of time, and need an OHV to get around.





Maxident said:


> At least Scott has some interesting ideas...
> 
> Scott, I disagree with most of the points you made. However, outside the Hitler and hypocrite statements, it was nice to see the flip side. Thanks for putting some thought into it and giving a rats ### about this. Just be careful how it's delivered. As we can see with DBK, it can distract us from the issue.


Hey maxident

It does please me that you found my ideas to be interesting even if you disagree with them.

But....I am curious. ...you are quick to call out dbk, and myself....but you let the above and other unfounded personal attacts on me by Marley to pass with out comment.....why is that ?

Scott


----------



## caverdan

Have any of you been to Glenwood Caverns and rode their gondola tramway? The cars do not detach....they just slow the thing down to a crawl to let everyone on. They started with 12 cars that hold 6 people. The cars are evenly spaced along the cable in groups of three....making four groups of cars. You creep past the other cars in the middle of the ride. Takes about 5 minutes per group of cars and is probably about as long of distance of a ride as the one we are talking about.

If it was going to be a high speed detachable one.....you think they'd be bragg'in about it.

Hey......where the hell is the casino at????? OH YEA.......some cracker dreamed this one up. ;-):lol:

SYOTR!!!!


----------



## restrac2000

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well somehow I've missed (more likely forgotten) that page with the tram detail.
> 
> ''The Tramway will have eight-person gondolas, which will take an estimated 8 to 10 minutes from the rim of the Canyon to the Canyon floor. The length of the Tramway will be approximately 1.4 miles (2.25 kilometers) with about a 3,200 foot (975 meters) descent."
> 
> While this is a bit more illuminating, it still doesn't help without knowing how many gondolas will be on the loop. I'll play with it....
> 
> Use ten minutes as the one-way transit time, 20 minutes round trip, so one 8-person car can make three full trips an hour, and 30 full trips every average 10-hour day. Multiply times 7 per gondola car (you can't assume a 100% load factor all day) and you get 210 people per gondola car per day. Divide that into your claim of 5,500 visitors per day, and you need 26 gondola cars. That's a gondola car every 200 yards or so on the cables. May be practical, may not be -- I'm not an engineer -- just pointing it out.
> 
> One might also fiddle a bit with the assumption that you're going to average 5,500 per day. That means slow days in the middle of winter you'll have lots fewer, and in spring, summer, and fall, there would have to be vastly greater numbers. So the tram actually would have to be much more tightly populated with gondola cars to accommodate the overages that allow a 5,500 person average. At some point these become engineering and cost questions that are beyond me, but they are real factors to consider.
> 
> If you work the numbers from another angle, putting even the average of 500+ people down there every hour (to achieve the projected daily visitor figure) doesn't seem practical from a river-level congestion point of view. And as noted above, in some seasons the facilities at river level would be called upon to deal with spectacularly higher visitor densities -- again something that just doesn't seem possible. What are you going to do -- limit people to 10 minutes at the bottom, and then round them up and hustle them them back into a gondola? Not likely...
> 
> Even if I'm off by some modest amount in my little brainstorming exercise, surely this and other discrepancies are obvious to those involved in evaluating the proposed project.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


I was trying to figure out the numbers but it had too many assumptions without more information. Working backwards, assuming 15 hour day (unlikely), would mean about 350 people an hour which would mean they have at least 15 gondola cars (10 minutes down = 3 full cycles an hour). 

I have no doubt there will be times of maximum occupancy but doubt that will be consistent seasonally or after it is less of a novelty. It will be interesting to see where the Skywalk numbers land over time as I would wager a lot of the traffic to such sites wears off after its opening (just guessing).

I am also guessing the numbers are inflated but don't have a way to measure that assumption. Without a detailed plan its hard to analyze and I assume that is intentional on their part. With this being a contentious development in a highly contentious location transparency does not benefit them.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

caverdan said:


> Have any of you been to Glenwood Caverns and rode their gondola tramway? The cars do not detach....they just slow the thing down to a crawl to let everyone on. They started with 4 cars that hold 6 people. The cars are evenly spaced along the cable. You creep past the other car in the middle of the ride. Takes about 5 minutes per car and is probably about as long of distance of a ride as the one we are talking about. They added two more cars recently so you slow down twice on the ride up. It probably adds about 30 or 40 seconds to the ride.
> 
> If it was going to be a high speed detachable one.....they'd be bragg'in about it.
> 
> Hey......where the hell is the casino at????? OH YEA.......some cracker dreamed this one up. ;-):lol:
> 
> SYOTR!!!!


Um...the gondola plans we are talking cover way more vertical, and is much longer than the one in glennwood ...high speed detachable gondolas are the norm, not the exception. ...I would fully expect this to be that type of gondola. 

Scott


----------



## richp

Hi Shredder Scott,

Well it's entirely possible my estimates are off on gondola cabin spacing. But even if you could quadruple the traffic flow with that kind of spacing, the major point is still there. A tramway that is physically capable of doing what they claim (5,500 per day average) will put huge numbers of people into a very small space -- continuously, day after day, week after week, a great part of the year. 

And yes, your down-time comment is right on. But it actually reinforces my view that the through-put on the system is unlikely to ever reach the projected figures.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## caverdan

shredder-scott said:


> Um...the gondola plans we are talking cover way more vertical, and is much longer than the one in glennwood ...high speed detachable gondolas are the norm, not the exception. ...I would fully expect this to be that type of gondola.
> 
> Scott


Your right....I should have looked it up. The thing is less than a mile and 7 minutes to ride.  

So one way to make more money with less people is to charge more. I saw one place on the investors web site that mentioned $40.00 a ride. There is an admission gate....just like at the other place on the rim that the non Native Americans own. What do you guess that will be?


----------



## shredder-scott

restrac2000 said:


> I was trying to figure out the numbers but it had too many assumptions without more information. Working backwards, assuming 15 hour day (unlikely), would mean about 350 people an hour which would mean they have at least 15 gondola cars (10 minutes down = 3 full cycles an hour).
> 
> I have no doubt there will be times of maximum occupancy but doubt that will be consistent seasonally or after it is less of a novelty. It will be interesting to see where the Skywalk numbers land over time as I would wager a lot of the traffic to such sites wears off after its opening (just guessing).
> 
> I am also guessing the numbers are inflated but don't have a way to measure that assumption. Without a detailed plan its hard to analyze and I assume that is intentional on their part. With this being a contentious development in a highly contentious location transparency does not benefit them.
> 
> Phillip


Hey phillip 

As an avid skier, who has ridden both gondolas and trams....let me try to help you out on your calculations. 

A typical ski area high speed detacable gondola will having a spacing of say 50 feet...a fresh gondola will arrive and leave every 20 secs or so I would estimate. ...A typical ski area gondola will likly have well over a 100+ cars in my estimation.

Try using a 100 foot spacing...see how many cars that is...then you will have better idea of hourly capacity of these systems

I am sure the system can easily move 5,000+ folks in much less than 8 hours...but that is just a guess....also be advised....it is easy to add more cars if the intiall spacing is large at latter date. ...and there are special cars for carrying food, garbage ect..that can be added or removed eaisly each day.

Scott


----------



## restrac2000

caverdan said:


> Have any of you been to Glenwood Caverns and rode their gondola tramway? The cars do not detach....they just slow the thing down to a crawl to let everyone on. They started with 12 cars that hold 6 people. The cars are evenly spaced along the cable in groups of three....making four groups of cars. You creep past the other cars in the middle of the ride. Takes about 5 minutes per group of cars and is probably about as long of distance of a ride as the one we are talking about.
> 
> If it was going to be a high speed detachable one.....you think they'd be bragg'in about it.
> 
> Hey......where the hell is the casino at????? OH YEA.......some cracker dreamed this one up. ;-):lol:
> 
> SYOTR!!!!


The Grand Canyon one will be 1.4 miles long according to their site. The Glenwood tram is 4500 feet long, so about 2800 feet shorter (or reversed the Grand design is more than half again as long). 

I doubt the target audience cares about details like detachable or high speed. Those things matter for ski junkies who covet miles and vertical distance accumulations but what matters to tourists is cost and at most time on it, which is 8-10 minutes. I would guess considering the size of the development and the fact its all going to be new they will dump the relatively little extra money it takes to buy the higher end machine into the investment considering its the center piece. 

One of the elements I haven't read much about is, assuming it goes through, what amount of impact construction will have on the site. How are they going to house and transport all of the workers to and from the LCR bottom site? What will they do will all of the debris created from blasting the trail into the rock? Who owns airspace to permit the helicopters needed to construct towers? Etc, etc. The last one definitely presents a hurdle for the developers if the NPS tries to assert ownership of the river bottom.

A lot to be curious about.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000

shredder-scott said:


> Hey phillip
> 
> As an avid skier, who has ridden both gondolas and trams....let me try to help you out on your calculations.
> 
> A typical ski area high speed detacable gondola will having a spacing of say 50 feet...a fresh gondola will arrive and leave every 20 secs or so I would estimate. ...A typical ski area gondola will likly have well over a 100+ cars in my estimation.
> 
> Try using a 100 foot spacing...see how many cars that is...then you will have better idea of hourly capacity of these systems
> 
> I am sure the system can easily move 5,000+ folks in much less than 8 hours...but that is just a guess....also be advised....it is easy to add more cars if the intiall spacing is large at latter date. ...and there are special cars for carrying food, garbage ect..that can be added or removed eaisly each day.
> 
> Scott


Yeah, I had a feeling there were modular enough to adapt to needs. I work at a ski resort that just got its first high speed quad this year so a little behind the times. And we had to buy a used one from a defunct resort in Wyoming.

Phillip


----------



## Maxident

shredder-scott said:


> Hey maxident
> 
> It does please me that you found my ideas to be interesting even if you disagree with them.
> 
> But....I am curious. ...you are quick to call out dbk, and myself....but you let the above and other unfounded personal attacts on me by Marley to pass with out comment.....why is that ?
> 
> Scott


Haha. To be honest. I didn't read much of what he had written. It seemed trivial and less interesting. Part of that distraction. I like to think that I engaged DBK and yourself to poke holes in your thought processes and make you rethink, not just your position on the gondola, but how you deliver it. But the truth is, a part of the reason was that I felt it necessarily to defend myself (from ad hominem). Pride I guess. Thanks for calling me out. Helps me find the id.


----------



## bucketboater

You guys are missing the point. You're turning this into a white trash vs treehugger debate. The whole idea is flawed. Sex pods are designed for winter use. I can't imagine anyone would want to be stuck in these things on a August day in the ditch. Sounds like hell to me. The grand should be experienced with the sun in your face and the wind in your hair. A high speed quad is the only option.


----------



## restrac2000

richp said:


> Hi Shredder Scott,
> 
> Well it's entirely possible my estimates are off on gondola cabin spacing. But even if you could quadruple the traffic flow with that kind of spacing, the major point is still there. A tramway that is physically capable of doing what they claim (5,500 per day average) will put huge numbers of people into a very small space -- continuously, day after day, week after week, a great part of the year.
> 
> And yes, your down-time comment is right on. But it actually reinforces my view that the through-put on the system is unlikely to ever reach the projected figures.
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


That is a ton of people down there in a noticeably limited space. 

Does anybody know how they handle human waste management at Phantom? I know they fly out human waste at several locations in the GCNP boundaries. Water and human waste are definitely a prickly subject for this site. 

If we take the 5500 number at face value and assume an average of 80-100 gallons of water consumed per individual each day that number adds up fast. Obviously that number is less at the LCR site, as it does not include overnight requirements like showers, but you are still looking at large numbers for hydration and food management. 

So many details that have implications worthy of consideration. 

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott

bucketboater said:


> You guys are missing the point. You're turning this into a white trash vs treehugger debate. The whole idea is flawed. Sex pods are designed for winter use. I can't imagine anyone would want to be stuck in these things on a August day in the ditch. Sounds like hell to me. The grand should be experienced with the sun in your face and the wind in your hair. A high speed quad is the only option.


I agree a high speed quad or 6 or even 8 pack would be a funner ride 

But....then you would have 2 problems

1 chairlifts are not handicap frendly rides

2 In marginal weather a gondola is much more comfortable. 

Also most gondolas have windows that open and close, and other vents so airflow in them is good.....I do not think the aug heat, would be a problem.

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott

Some rough caculations

Assumptions

8 passenger gondola avg load 6

1 gondola every 30 sec

gondola runs 50 min out 60

8 hour day

Then you move 600 folks/hr and 4,800 folks/day...close to what estimated demand of 5,500/ day....but much smaller number than I would have gussed.

Scott


----------



## richp

Hi Scott,

Yes your numbers work under some assumptions. The biggest of which is that the lower terminal can be built at all. Its proposed location is on land that the Park has at least a defensible claim is theirs -- not the tribe's.

But set that aside. Run those kinds of visitor numbers down the tram, and how do you handle them at the bottom? The volume of people is overwhelmingly large for such a small area.

And Phillip's questions about water, garbage, and human waste are huge in the environment we're talking about down there. Even if they were to take water from the river, extensive treatment (including floculation to remove the periodically heavy sediment load) would be needed. There is no room at all for a sewage/waste water treatment operation there. It would somehow have to be containerized and taken out either on the gondolas or by helicopter. And all the solid garbage would have to be accumulated and carried out every day as well, by some method. 

Even if the tram could handle the 5,500 a day volume (which I still doubt), the crowding at the bottom would be intense and the logistical problems monumental. These are just a few of the considerations I hope will be in the mix as the tribal leaders make their final decision. I hope they are discerning enough to not just take the developers' representations without a lot of close scrutiny.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## shredder-scott

richp said:


> Hi Scott,
> 
> Yes your numbers work under some assumptions. The biggest of which is that the lower terminal can be built at all. Its proposed location is on land that the Park has at least a defensible claim is theirs -- not the tribe's.
> 
> But set that aside. Run those kinds of visitor numbers down the tram, and how do you handle them at the bottom? The volume of people is overwhelmingly large for such a small area.
> 
> And Phillip's questions about water, garbage, and human waste are huge in the environment we're talking about down there. Even if they were to take water from the river, extensive treatment (including floculation to remove the periodically heavy sediment load) would be needed. There is no room at all for a sewage/waste water treatment operation there. It would somehow have to be containerized and taken out either on the gondolas or by helicopter. And all the solid garbage would have to be accumulated and carried out every day as well, by some method.
> 
> Even if the tram could handle the 5,500 a day volume (which I still doubt), the crowding at the bottom would be intense and the logistical problems monumental. These are just a few of the considerations I hope will be in the mix as the tribal leaders make their final decision. I
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> Rich Phillips


Hey Rich

You have pointed out some vaild design and engineering challenges the project faces.

I think in the usa we have lots of good engineers. ..I have confidence they can solve the problems in an way to cause minimal environmental impact on the floor or rim.

Ski areas have similar problems with upper mtn lodges...they use the gondolas and snow cats to move supplies and waste up and down the mtn......usally after hours,

Scott


----------



## richp

Hi Scott 

Yup, but every one of them changes the financial equation. And in the end that is a big reality in the determination whether it is good for the tribe. Or just for the developers...

FEIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

shredder-scott said:


> I think in the usa we have lots of good engineers. ..I have confidence they can solve the problems in an way to cause minimal environmental impact on the floor or rim.


I also have confidence that *with ample budget for design and construction*, it could all be done by good engineers, however I don't have much confidence in developers to provide those budgets. Developers don't have a very good track record when it comes to implementing the kind of systems that we seem to agree is needed.

-AH


----------



## GCHiker4887

restrac2000 said:


> That is a ton of people down there in a noticeably limited space.
> 
> Does anybody know how they handle human waste management at Phantom? I know they fly out human waste at several locations in the GCNP boundaries. Water and human waste are definitely a prickly subject for this site.
> 
> If we take the 5500 number at face value and assume an average of 80-100 gallons of water consumed per individual each day that number adds up fast. Obviously that number is less at the LCR site, as it does not include overnight requirements like showers, but you are still looking at large numbers for hydration and food management.
> 
> So many details that have implications worthy of consideration.
> 
> Phillip


Phillip-
Phantom Ranch has a septic system. The waste is broken down by enzymes in the system. In fact, during the shutdown a few years ago, they had to get groovers from the few river trips that passed to feed into the system to keep the system going.

The Escalade folks have not presented a plan for how they will handle human waste below the rim. The development plan on the rim shows sewage settling ponds.

Hope this helps.


----------



## EZ

*Water quality downstream of Phantom Ranch*



GCHiker4887 said:


> Phillip-
> Phantom Ranch has a septic system. The waste is broken down by enzymes in the system. In fact, during the shutdown a few years ago, they had to get groovers from the few river trips that passed to feed into the system to keep the system going.
> 
> The Escalade folks have not presented a plan for how they will handle human waste below the rim. The development plan on the rim shows sewage settling ponds.
> 
> Hope this helps.


There is a noticeable change in the amount of algae growing on the river banks just downstream of Phantom Ranch. It seems to me that this sudden change in conditions is likely related to effluent from Phantom Ranch through their septic system and leach fields. All that grey and black water has to go somewhere, and its residence time in the Phantom Ranch sewage system is probably not long enough to scavenge everything by mechanical and biotic water treatment. The shallow alluvial aquifer underlying Bright Angel Creek probably takes that water right into the Colorado.

I am not trying to stir up any s**t (haha), but does anybody know anything more about the Phantom Ranch septic system and WQ in the area? I do know that Havasu Creek is loaded with effluent from upstream and I try to avoid that water. A newbie on my last trip actually swam down the creek from the Motor Pool to Havasu Harbor and he got wickedly sick very soon after. He tried to attribute his chills and sickness to just hypothermia from getting too cold in his ducky...


----------



## jpbay

So if a gondola is ok in Grand Canyon maybe I should start seeking investment funds for some more of them. Say Yosemite village to the top of half dome. Crater lake lodge to Wizard Island, maybe across Yellowstone falls. Send money to me now. I'll make sure they are ADA compliant!


----------



## shredder-scott

jpbay said:


> So if a gondola is ok in Grand Canyon maybe I should start seeking investment funds for some more of them. Say Yosemite village to the top of half dome. Crater lake lodge to Wizard Island, maybe across Yellowstone falls. Send money to me now. I'll make sure they are ADA compliant!


Your anti gondola in gc argument is an extermist ones.

Each case needs to evaluate on its unique characteristics. 

Your yellowstone falls example....there is already good to excellent acess to the falls for all....A gondola would cause significant negatives impact on the visual enjoyment of the falls for many. 

In the case of a gc gondola...there are minimal visual impacts...you will only be able see it, from one very small segement of the gc....there is very limited acess for all for rim - wall - floor experence....the rim, wall and floor each offer a significantly different and important gc experiences. 

The concept of a gondola into gc has more benfits than drawbacks.

The concept of a gondola across yellowstone falls has no postives (that I can identify ) and significant drawbacks....I would vigorously oppose such a concept.

paddle on

scott


----------



## GPP33

shredder-scott said:


> Your anti gondola in gc argument is an extermist ones.
> 
> Each case needs to evaluate on its unique characteristics.
> 
> Your yellowstone falls example....there is already good to excellent acess to the falls for all....A gondola would cause significant negatives impact on the visual enjoyment of the falls for many.
> 
> In the case of a gc gondola...there are minimal visual impacts...you will only be able see it, from one very small segement of the gc....there is very limited acess for all for rim - wall - floor experence....the rim, wall and floor each offer a significantly different and important gc experiences.
> 
> The concept of a gondola into gc has more benfits than drawbacks.
> 
> The concept of a gondola across yellowstone falls has no postives (that I can identify ) and significant drawbacks....I would vigorously oppose such a concept.
> 
> paddle on
> 
> scott


When extremists run out of logical arguments they start reaching for things like comparing this to a gondola across Yellowstone falls. It happens all the time. 

And even though it may be able to carry 5,500 people an hour down there's still the problem of finding that many people to pay for a ride. During the off season it'd probably be more like 50 and during the peak season more like 500 on a weekend, less during the week and maybe a little more on peak days. All complete guesses pulled from my ass of course.


----------



## Rich

shredder-scott said:


> Some rough caculations
> 
> Assumptions
> 
> 8 passenger gondola avg load 6
> 
> 1 gondola every 30 sec
> 
> gondola runs 50 min out 60
> 
> 8 hour day
> 
> Then you move 600 folks/hr and 4,800 folks/day...close to what estimated demand of 5,500/ day....but much smaller number than I would have gussed.
> 
> Scott


Can you imagine 5,000 people a day at the confluence?
One trip we had two private trips at the same time at the Little C and it felt very crowded with 30 people!


----------

