# Uprun of Grand Canyon Postponed



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hualapai plan for upriver trips runs afoul of Grand Canyon regulations; tribe postpones launch | Star Tribune

Hualapai plan for upriver trips runs afoul of Grand Canyon regulations; tribe postpones launch

by: FELICIA FONSECA , Associated Press 
Updated: February 6, 2014 - 6:45 PM

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The Hualapai tribe has shelved a plan to run rafting trips upriver in the Grand Canyon after it ran afoul of the National Park Service.

The tribe's reservation in northwestern Arizona extends for more than 100 miles along the Colorado River and includes the only road to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. But the National Park Service governs the waterway, and its regulations prohibit upriver travel on most of it.

Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga said the agency learned through a news release of the tribe's plan to take passengers about 3 miles upriver from Diamond Creek year round. The Hualapai's plan to launch five boats upriver per day also would have exceeded the limit on river trips.

"This is a regulation that applies to all river users, and it would be in direct violation of the regulations in the book," he said. "We'd rather not get to that point of trying to deal with enforcement but actually convincing them this isn't safe and it isn't a good visitor experience."

Dave Cieslak, a spokesman for the tribe, said late Wednesday that the tribe would hold off on its plans until it talks with the Park Service.
"For decades, the Hualapai tribe has worked closely with the National Park Service to provide an unforgettable experience for thousands of visitors to the Colorado River," he said. "We respect the Park Service's concerns and will postpone the launch of these new tours while we review the regulations and discuss our various options."

The Hualapai's daylong whitewater rafting trips that launch downriver from Diamond Creek are unaffected.

Hualapai River Runners manager Earlene Havatone said the tribe has done upriver excursions in the past and simply planned to reintroduce them on March 15.

The tours were billed as a cultural experience. Passengers would leave from a tribal lodge in Peach Springs and travel down a primitive road to the river's edge where they would board a motorized raft and travel upstream about 20 minutes to a lava cliff with petroglyphs. Havatone said passengers would learn about the Hualapai's encounters with the U.S. cavalry, traditional trading partners on the river and other cultural tidbits.
"A lot of people don't have that opportunity," she said. "It's an authentic experience."

The Hualapai's announcement of the river trips baffled groups representing both commercial river trips and self-guided trips. John Dillon, executive director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association, said upriver travel above Separation Canyon, where two tributaries enter the river from the north and south about 40 miles from Lake Mead, clearly is prohibited by the Park Service. "We're not allowed to deviate from that plan," he said. "We can't just think of an idea we'd like to do and do it. I think that's where everyone had pause."

Tom Martin of River Runners for Wilderness said he's not entirely convinced that the Hualapai's plan won't resurface. He said it would create danger in having motorized rafts and nonmotorized rafts coming at one another in a stretch of the river that already is congested. River trips launching at Lees Ferry near Glen Canyon Dam either can take out at Diamond Creek or continue to Lake Mead in Nevada. Everybody has to "play by the rules, and if you're not going to play by the rules, we're going to have to respond," Martin said. "So when we see a statement that says 'we're going to postpone this,' we're still very, very concerned."


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Three miles from a road doesn't sound like wilderness to me.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Good point! Unless you are in Alaska, almost all of the lower 48 states wilderness area boundaries have a road along the boundary somewhere. Three miles from a 20 mile long dirt road is common in many wilderness areas. Oh, and the article didn't include the Hualapai mentioning they want the tour to go up past Pumpkin Springs, or 14-15 miles upriver from the road.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Here's something RRFW and GCPBA can agree on.

Not only would this violate a long-standing internal Park regulation (dating to the 1960's) against uprunning above Separation, it would violate the CRMP.

And then there are other reasons, starting with the Park managing the river corridor as wilderness. Some may think that should totally exclude motors. But there are very few in the GC boating community who would agree uprun, round trip excursions are consistent with wilderness values. 

Remember as well. The 210-224 corridor is sort of a parking place for trips waiting to take out at Diamond the next day. Envision how your final day on the river will feel if you have blue HRR snouts scooting up and down in front of your camp.

And yes, if the camel gets its nose under the tent (as in some ways it already has with the docks in the river at Quartermaster in trespass of Park-claimed terrain below the high water line) then the Diamond to Pumpkin route could be next.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, good points. Here's another one not to forget. The Park also limits the number of trips on the Colorado River at any one time upstream of Diamond Creek in order to control on-river congestion and attraction sight crowding. In order not to exceed this limit of 60 trips at any one time, Grand Canyon National Park recently proposed reducing thirty public river trip lengths from 21 days to 18 days in the second half of April. The Hualapai up-run tours would blow that number right off the charts, as the "temporary" helicopter use at Quartermaster has blown up and out of control. 

Yours, tom


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

k2andcannoli said:


> Three miles from a road doesn't sound like wilderness to me.


The smallest designated wilderness area in the US is less than 6 acres. Most wilderness areas are surrounded by roads, and the furthest you can get from from a maintained road in the lower 48 is ~20 miles (southeast corner of Yellowstone NP on the border with the Bridger/Teton National Forest.)

3 miles from a maintained road is actually quite far, sadly enough. Many areas that are closer to roads than that are managed for wilderness characteristics. It seems to me like the grand, of all places, should be managed for its wilderness characteristics. In my opinion, that should mean no more motors except for rescue. no new roads/trail development (beyond maintenance), and no tram to the little C.

I'd have to check a map, but my bet is that the confluence of the Little C is not much more than 3 miles from a maintained road in absolute distance. They are trying to build a tram to the bottom of it. 

Thanks to those who helped put the brakes on the up running.


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

Are the Hualapai just trying to take back what was taken from them or what? They could play rough, increasing the take out fees. Lots to think about.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Buck,

You put your finger on touchy subject. Some people will look at this as tribal land that white people have appropriated, and think we should concede to the tribes in cases like this. Others will have the opposite view. A lot of cultural and moral freight informs those beliefs.

But if you approach it from a current legal point of view -- noting that none of the tribes challenged the CRMP that embodies the current uprun ban -- there is little or no question the Park has full authority to regulate river operations within its boundaries. There is a sort of low level (never contested in court) dispute about where the boundary is -- middle of the river, bank, traditional high water mark, or elsewhere. But no rea challenge over the Park's on-river authority.

So for all practical purposes, the Park could continue to enforce its "no uprun" policy, as it has since the 60's. Whether they would actually do so in the face of direct Hualapai action is another question. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm with you Rich. Just my nature, perhaps, to bring it up. Seems like continental natives from here to Alaska get a knee-jerk reaction whenever they try to do anything that encroaches on the landed gentry's entertainment. I hear a lot of bitchin' about the Hualapai fees but haven't had a negative experience, on a personal level, with anyone associated with the tribe ever. As more and more people encroach, we may just have to make space. But for now, I'm comfortable living with it the way it is. Probably won't make that many more downriver runs myself. Don't recall a whole lot of congestion those last few miles either, last time I was there. Just something to think about.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi BJC, 

No takings here. The Hualapai Reservation language of 1883 noted the boundary went north "...to the Colorado River" and "...along said river..." and in 1975, Congress set the boundary of Grand Canyon National Park on the south bank, while, of course, the Hualapai boundary remained unchanged as it was before 1975, to-and-along the river. The Park goes to the south bank; the Hualapai boundary goes north to the river; two ways of saying the same thing, namely that the river surface is in the Park.

As to increasing the Diamond Creek toll road fee, the higher they raise the fee, the more river runners float on by and go to the Pearce Ferry Ramp or South Cove. 

Dave, Good points about roads and wilderness areas. The nearest "maintained road" to the proposed tramway, that actually gets bladed and repaired, is actually on the North Rim (Cape Royal Road). On the east side, it's eleven miles to the nearest rarely bladed dirt road. 

As for putting the breaks on this, please send a thank you to Superintendent Dave Uberuaga, Grand Canyon National Park, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon AZ 86023. All we did was make sure we had a good handle on what the Hualapai were proposing, then make sure the NPS heard about it. The NPS has the clout here.

As Rich points out, this has not come to a pushing match yet. That said, I asked the head of Law Enforcement at the South Rim, Bill Wright, what I should do if i get photos of Hualapai doing up-runs above Diamond. He suggested photos be mailed to [email protected]

I am worried as the Hualapai say they are postponing this tour, not giving up on the idea. They also say they have done this tour in the past, and run up to Pumpkin Springs and beyond. In my 45 years of river running in Grand Canyon, I have never seen them above Diamond Creek. One report notes a deadhead uprun of two blue boats by guides to the river above the cable while they wait for passengers. That does not a tour constitute. 

All the best, Tom

Tom Martin
Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't care what the treaties say. My question is - - and it is just a question - -what would be the harm of a few upruns at the lower end of the canyon near the Diamond Creek take out? If cultural sites that belong to the Hualapai are otherwise inaccessible, would they not have the right to sue for access?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Buck,

There already are many opportunities for tribal peoples to go down the river to visit cultural sites. I've been on several private trips where we've interacted with them. On one occasion, we all sat on the beach at Nankoweap for hours, honoring a request by a tribal group to privately go to the granaries to hold a special ceremony. Sometimes tribal parties charter a trip, perhaps with an administrative permit. I know up on Westwater and Cat, they sometimes go as passengers on government patrols, and that may even happen on the Grand. 

From what I've read, the justification for the type of trip involved here is not to visit religious or cultural sites that are inaccessible with a downriver trip. We're talking about typical tourist fun runs. 

As I see it, this setup would seemingly reduce logistical expenses quite a bit. They would give folks a ride up and down through some rapids, while not requiring the Hualapai to truck their snouts back up to Diamond from Pearce Ferry.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Buck,

Meant to add this to my prior post and forgot. It's something Earl Perry pointed out yesterday.

The stretch from about 219 - 224.5 is one of the most crowded in the canyon. A node forms there almost every night as nearly every trip positions itself for takeout at Diamond after ten the next morning. This proposal would add more traffic in the node area -- visualize sitting in camp enjoying the solitude and then having HRR blue snouts zipping up and down in front of your camp. It also would impact conditions at the takeout, which already can be a zoo, as both commercial and private trips derig on a relatively small beach. Of course it is a tribal takeout, but the area immediately upstream is a critical area for managing the final stages river running in the GC, and its under Park control. 

Someone has already voiced a concern they could increase their takeout fees if this isn't permitted. But the risk for them in that is that more people will then go to Pearce (which can be easily done in just one day with a night float), and they'd lose a corresponding amount of revenue.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

*FYI*

Superintendent Dave Uberuaga
Grand Canyon National Park
Box 129​Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

February 7, 2014

Via E-Mail

Dear Superintendent Uberuaga,

As a follow up to my earlier inquiry on this matter, I am writing as President of Grand Canyon Private Boater's Association, to register our opposition to any prospective upstream boating in the Colorado River above Diamond Creek. We understand from media sources that the Hualapai tribe has considered including such a trip option through their Hualapai River Runners operation. We recognize that subsequent media reports indicate that the Hualapai have postponed their plans. Still, we are not content with that. This proposal should be promptly met with head on opposition before it can re-emerge.

GCPBA believes that any such upstream travel would constitute a serious breach of the Colorado River Management Plan and certain federal regulations. We also believe such activity would significantly impact the wilderness character of that portion of the river as well as violate a longstanding traditional prohibition against upstream travel above Separation Canyon. 

Another point to consider is that the stretch of river from about mile 219 to mile 224.5 is one of the most crowded in the canyon. A node forms there almost every night as most trips position themselves for takeout the next day. Trips running upriver would add another crowd in the node area and at the takeout. That makes the area immediately upstream of Diamond Creek critical for managing all river running in the GC.

 Grand Canyon Private Boaters’ Association will absolutely and vigorously support park and DOI action opposing this, or any similar activity by anyone, not just the Hualapai River Runners. We believe that if this activity goes forward, it may lead to other CRMP infringements throughout the river corridor and possibly elsewhere in Grand Canyon National Park. The impact of these types of exploits can do nothing but have a severe negative impact on the character and quality of river running in Grand Canyon, as well as have major detrimental consequences for the Canyon ecosystem. We are hoping that quick preventive action by the Park, will influence the tribe to permanently drop consideration of this prospective trip offering. 

Thank you for your continued willingness to work with GCPBA on matters of mutual interest. Please be assured of our cooperation in this important matter and understand that we will insist on rigid enforcement. 

Regards,

Wally Rist, President
Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

I certainly can see where the Hualapai would want to increase their cashflow from their strategic location. What I don't understand is why they have not developed the resource that they have.

After 3 weeks on the river, how much would you pay for a hot shower before your 24 hour drive home? What would you pay for an ice cream?
How much for an ICE COLD MICRO BEER? (Understand there are cultural/tribal issues with this one.) How much would you pay for someone else to clean the groovers?

After 3 weeks of not reaching for my wallet and 3 weeks of deprivation (LOL)
I don't care how much they charge, I WANT ICE CREAM!!!

My point is they are sitting on a frick'in Gold Mine and they have not developed the potential revenue. Even the trips taking out down river would stop for a shower and ice cream!


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

Thanks Rich. I'm impressed by the nodes argument and, more importantly, by the issue of crowding that could occur, I suppose, at the Diamond Creek take-out.

Hey guys, I'm just an old river-rat who happens to have a soft-spot for the underdog, including continental natives. I saw how aggressively the fishermen up in Alaska were toward the tribal fishing, property boundaries, access issues, etc. Was somewhat offensive that the "white man" who builds fences could be so damn selfish about someone else wanting to build a fence because they were "natives."

OK, OK - - the point is, we ought not resent the Hualapai's presence. They were there first, right? So, keeping an open mind is all I'm saying.

Peace


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, that is a good letter Wally wrote. 

Earl did a good job of articulating the crowding issue I was referring to in the 213 to 226 Mile section above Diamond. 

BCJ, haven't seen any posts where folks are resenting the Hualapai presence on Hualapai land. We are concerned about resource protection in Grand Canyon National Park. 

But I'll tell you a story that may help you reconsider just who the underdog is...
I remember the novelty of seeing that first helicopter on the ground at Quartermaster back in 1996. We stopped and talked with the pilot and passengers, as we thought they were filming a movie. They offered us champagne that they had flown in. We had taken 30 days to get there, they had taken 30 minutes. We were shocked at how clean they were, and they were shocked we could have gone 30 days without a shower. Next year there were two helicopters, just a few more... and now, 18 years later, there are almost 1,000 (one thousand) aircraft flights, mostly helicopter, from dawn to dark every summer day at Grand Canyon West (latest numbers from FAA), along with two docks that run a dozen 20 foot hard hull boats a mile up and down the river by the docks all day long. The number of flights drops to about 500 per day in the winter.

The most remote wilderness area in the entire US is now full of low flying aircraft noise from dawn to dark. A number of river runners now exit at Diamond or do a night float to not have to boat through the helicopter scene. 

Given this history, a few turns into many more, and the resource we all cherish is no more. 

Hope this helps, yours, tom


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

Nice story Tom, but I've run a few river miles too and don't need anyone to tell me what wilderness is and/or what resources are. There are people all over this planet, including the Hualapai, the Tlingit, and hundreds of other tribes. I don't need "help" understanding. I'm just asking some questions.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I tend to agree with BCJ's approach. Several of my friends from Canada have helped educate about the biases and prejudices we duplicate even with the best of intentions. I have been challenged by finding that balance but I am trying to be more considerate on how we treat first nations and tribal relations. 

Its a challenge to view the world outside of our own personal self-interest (and by extension the stakeholder groups were are aligned with). Unpacking issues like this is anything but easy or simple.

My personal interest is clear: the less the better as far as development in the Grand. Western law tends to side with that in this case. But my education informs me to understand the validity of how the tribe see these issues (or at least their commercial voice, as I understand each tribe has factions and multiple voices). How can I blame them for wanting to exploit a tourist opportunity in this fashion? How can I blame them for potentially challenging the legal structure that has always treated their interest in largely a tertiary manner that is mostly hindsight? 

And one caveat for me in these conversations....this currently seems to have minor resource protection issues but significant visitor experience consequences. We are not talking about a pristine river environment here as it stands. We are talking about a heavily trafficked stretch of river that already has noticeable issues with pollution (chemical and ecological like invasive fish species). I don't see much potential for long term degradation to the river environment as the current proposal stands. If they take it to installing docks, etc then we have some localized short-to-medium term resource issues but that is not currently stated. An inch becomes a mile pretty quick so I can understand that pre-emptive concern if that explains the "resource protection" terminology. 

On that caveat though is how people perceive experiences can be distinctly different then the actual condition of the environment. And that is the argument I can support: protecting that last day/night on the river from upstream traffic. Its a delicate place to be mentally as you begin to process the end of an immense trip. 

Wishy washy on this one. Not sure where I will land on this one, if I ever find a comfy place to reside.

Phillip


----------



## kikii875 (Oct 25, 2010)

Tom Martin said:


> Hi BJC,
> 
> In my 45 years of river running in Grand Canyon, I have never seen them above Diamond Creek. One report notes a deadhead uprun of two blue boats by guides to the river above the cable while they wait for passengers. That does not a tour constitute.
> 
> ...


Tom, I have seen them twice in the last ten years. Once was above Three springs, one boat with only the driver as he drove by he was yelling something about all this land belonged to them and we shouldn't be there. On Sept. 9, 2011 we were taking out at diamond on a private and we had to wait while they rigged twice as many boats as normal. Half the boats went downstream on their regular daily, the other half of the boats were loaded with VIPs, not sure what that meant to them, and they headed upstream with 5 deflated paddle boats along with paddles for everyone. There plan was to go up around the pumpkin, which as you know is more than three miles, inflate the paddle boats and have all the VIPs in the paddle boats coming back down to Diamond. More of the Hualapai were there at diamond cooking dinner for said guests so they planned on it being an all day float with lunch on the river. That's 5 snouts and five paddle boats going up and back in a 12 mile section. I am glad we weren't taking out the next day or we would have been right in the middle of that on our last full day in the canyon.
Tom Hansen


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Phillip, since you mentioned docks, I'd like to add one fact for you to consider.

The Park has already allowed the tribe to build docks and other permanent structures below the high water mark at Quartermaster -- thus violating the law and the CRMP. The camel's nose has been under the tent for quite a while.

TomH, your account of a 2011 episode is very interesting. And what you described sure sounds like more of a leisure trip than anything sacred.

Finally, the CRMP envisions the possibility of the Park granting a legitimate river running concession to Native Americans. If the Hualapai (or some other tribe or coalition of tribes) would like to organize either recreation- or cultural-based trips, that legitimate option is available to them. That would provide opportunities for revenue, as well as cultural expression. 

Which bumps us up against a larger problem. I already mentioned the Quartermaster docks. The lower Deer Creek gorge was closed precipitously (and without any stakeholder consultation) by the Park, due to tribal requests associated with religious/cultural significance for that site. Hiking access to the Great Thumb area on the rim has been constrained for years -- in contravention to clear statutory language -- by tribal non-compliance with the law. These precedents for withdrawal of access to portions of the Park already have been set. One can envision them as being just the first of many, based on claims of religious or cultural significance. Visitation at places like Unkar and Nankoweap, and others could be at risk. 

So this is not just an isolated concern over an up-running regulation. It's part of a larger fabric that, yes, does entail finding a balance between sensitivity to tribal cultural and religious interests and use of land (that once was uniquely theirs) by the outside world.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Thank you Tom for your very enlightening post. All the best, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> Phillip, since you mentioned docks, I'd like to add one fact for you to consider.
> 
> ...


Definitely understand that concern and current reality. I don't envy the precarious balance the NPS has to manage on this one. I to be clear, if this did not involve a tribe then I would be firmly planted on the side against this proposal. Even with the tribe involved I find it undesirable and also realize its illegal concerning US law. 

The closure of Deer Creek hits close to home as I was a certified canyoneering guide. Wolfgang and Rich and that crew did a great job of keeping folks informed about the unusual process of that sudden closure. And as you mentioned the entire region is considered tenuous currently because of multiple stakeholder interests. 

Those docks are the principle reason I do not float the Diamond Down stretch. Well, I guess to be honest its more of the helicopters recreating the scene from Apocalypse Now but the docks and pontoon boats are the icing.

Complex subject that I need to better educate myself on. 

Phillip


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

Last May we came across a group being helicoptered out after a commercial trip and this was someplace above Diamond. Nice folks. It was fun to say hello and grab some ice. At Diamond we had to park for awhile upstream of the main beach while the Hualapai got their day trip boats loaded and launched. But that is their place, so I had no problem with it. I doubt that ice cream or beer sales could ever make up for a viable commercial day trip operation.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Tom Martin said:


> But I'll tell you a story that may help you reconsider just who the underdog is


Perhaps folks that have run the river hundreds of times should remove themselves from the equation to make room for others, including but not limited to natives, that have not.


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikesee - How do you pick what number of runs is enough to stop at?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

johnryan said:


> Mikesee - How do you pick what number of runs is enough to stop at?


I wouldn't have the first clue, nor am I in any position to know where to begin looking.

My point is that those that seem most up in arms about stopping non-traditional uses seem to be those that have already spent a veritable lifetime down in there. 

Why do they get to (seemingly) dictate this?

From where I sit, it seems that they (commercial GC runners) are a bigger part of the problem than any part of the solution.

Just my $.02.

MC


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Mike, you bring up a very good point. There is some "my commercial motor boats are ok but your commercial motorboats are not" pot-calling the kettle black issues here,
but we of gray hair do not get to dictate anything. We, red, white, blue (and gray) people , are all in this together, along with some laws like the NPS Organic Act, the Wilderness and Redwoods acts, Superintendents Orders and the Colorado River Management Plan. 



Some of us have been encouraging Grand Canyon National Park to award a concession to the Hualapai Tribe for Lee's Ferry downstream tours for some time, especially when a contract comes up for sale. The fact of the matter is the Hualapai Nation manages the south side of the Grand Canyon from the river to the rim from near National Canyon, past Lava Falls, to near Columbine Falls out by the Grand Wash Cliffs. The National Park Service manages the river surface in the entire Grand Canyon, from Lee’s Ferry to the Grand Wash. 



The following analogy might not be apt, but imagine this scenario: I come home one day to find my neighbor, who can trace their ancestry in my town back 1,600 years, made a new driveway through my living room so he could park his Harley in his back yard. Would I, as a property owner, have reason to be upset?


Thanks for your thoughts on this. It is complicated. Yours, tom


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

I don' think the analogy sticks, but I would like to know more facts about Hualapai efforts to participate as a downstream concessionaire. And Mikesee's point is well-taken. Not sure who the "we" and the "us" are. I'm just speaking for myself.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Schutzie has avoided jumping into this fray, but he's eaten the popcorn and had his fill. Time for some exercise.

It occurs to me that the biggest complaint is that "those Indians" are trying to usurp the Park service rules and that it will degrade the holistic experience of others as they enjoy their hard won permission to float the canyon.

So my observations;

The Park service has pretty much already permanently altered the canyon experience, what with development at Less' Ferry and the almost dictatorial demands of minimum equipment for rafters. Bridges and trails and a few thousand rafters running down the canyon, even with the "zero impact" rules, there's still the odd cigarette butt, or loose toilet paper laying around out there.

We don't even need to discuss the impact of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams on the canyon.

I am not saying these changes are bad or avoidable; I'm saying, we've already altered the canyon significantly just in this century.

I don't see that a few upriver runs of the lower canyon are going to have much impact, all things considered. Especially since, if you think about it, "they" were here first and we've kind of run our own driveway through their living room.

So lets everyone take a deep breath, eat some ice cream, and get some perspective on this thing.

And, if I was in charge of park permits for rafting I'd be thinking about changing the "once a year" limit on being in the canyon. I'd maybe consider the impact of saying once every other year, or maybe every second or even third year. I mean, if I've been waiting 5-10 years for my permit, and I see where the same hard core people are posting their videos every year of their trip down the canyon, I'd be asking who the hell do you need to know to get permission?

Just saying


----------

