Grand Canyon overflight proposal

[john smith]

I found this on the rec.backcountry group...

The Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers Association (GCHBA) supports
implementation of substantial restoration of natural quiet as defined
by the National Park Service and interpreted by the courts.

The GCHBA Board encourages you to submit your comments based on your
own views and concerns about air tours and aircraft noise to the FAA by
April 27, 2006. This is a very important issue that concerns all of us
that love the Canyon. One of the air tour operators has gone so far to
as to propose to the FAA that hiking and camping be banned in the areas
(such as Hermit Basin) where they conduct their tour flights. The tour
operators have flooded the FAA with comments from their customers in
favor of their operations. The new overflight rules can have a large
affect on our enjoyment of the Canyon.

See http://www.gchba.org/overflights.asp for our position statement and
http://www.gchba.org/overflight_submit.asp for a partially pre-filled
form for submission of your comments to the FAA.

Hikers - GCHBA represents the hiking community with members sharing
their experience through the Internet. Hikers are a smaller number than
some other groups involved in the overflights issue, but we are in the
10s-of-thousands each year and this is more than people realize. For
many, their trip to Grand Canyon is the `trip of a lifetime' - the
same as for other visitors. Over the years, the number of individual
backcountry hikers is in the millions.

Aircraft -Our proposal regarding flights over Grand Canyon is simple,
that there should be no aircraft over Grand Canyon except for essential
services (emergencies and other essential operations). Some people seem
to be offended by a proposal that they disagree with. A proposal is
just that: a proposal, not an action, not something to be offended
over. One of the most dangerous places to pass in Grand Canyon is
Crystal Rapid. You row as hard as you can for the north shore, and even
if you row as hard as you can you will never get there. But if you
don't row as hard as you can you may not get to be what we call `ABC,'
Alive Below Crystal. Making any proposal takes courage and involves
risk. GCHBA will sincerely review and consider every proposal.

Specific things we are looking for include: A quiet period in Hermit
Basin because this is a popular and accessible area. Some degree of
adjustment to jetliner routes because the noise model shows all of the
Park is affected now. Compliance reporting - recording tour aircraft
with on-board monitoring will improve the credibility of flight rules.
Sensible implementation of `no flights below the rim' - when we see a
helicopter with a cliff behind it and hear the sound coming back at us
from that cliff, it does not make any sense that this is `no flights
below the rim.'

Quiet - We intuitively understand the spiritual significance when
Native American speakers say that "what happens at Grand Canyon affects
the whole world." People come from all parts of the world to experience
Grand Canyon and they carry that experience back with them to all parts
of the world, and that experience must include natural quiet.

Water - The places in Grand Canyon where there is a good water source
are the most important to us. Every hiker must plan their trip around
where there is reliable water so these are the places that we go to
most often and these are the places that we would most like to see
protected.

Closures - We have heard about areas that have been closed to
flights, and hikers have to accept closures also, and we do. These
closures include road access to trailheads, cultural sites that have
been identified that we avoid, Native American lands where there was
little concern where we went but now we need to educate the hiking
community to respect these boundaries. We all share the obligation for
any type of closure, in the airspace or on the ground, for the future
protection of Grand Canyon.

The GCHBA Board of Directors
http://www.gchba.org

[Jay Honeck]

> I found this on the rec.backcountry group...
<snip>
> Aircraft -Our proposal regarding flights over Grand Canyon is simple,
> that there should be no aircraft over Grand Canyon except for essential
> services (emergencies and other essential operations).

I just love these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds who feel that
areas like the Grand Canyon should be cordoned off, to only be enjoyed
by the hyper-fit, Aryan uber-athletes among us who are actually able to
hike down into the canyon -- and to hell with the rest of us.

I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon. Yet that
doesn't seem to bother these folks in the least. They camouflage their
arguments behind Native American spriritual mumbo-jumbo, when it is
clear (to any thinking individual) that these activists simply want to
keep most people away from "their" canyon.

And this isn't just an issue over the Canyon. They have started this
crap over many other national and state parks, such as the Boundary
Waters, Devil's Tower, Yosemite, and even the Mississippi River.

Speak up now, or we risk losing our overflight rights to many of our
nation's most treasured land.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> I just love these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds who feel that
> areas like the Grand Canyon should be cordoned off, to only be enjoyed
> by the hyper-fit, Aryan uber-athletes among us who are actually able to
> hike down into the canyon -- and to hell with the rest of us.
> I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
> the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
> person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon.

Actually, I'm quite sympathetic to their views. Your argument works the
same for cars, boom boxes, and winnebegos too, and national parks are
getting so crowded with them that going there is not at all what a
national park is supposed to be about.

I'd love to be able to buzz the canyon, but when I do that, lots of
people have their experience significantly altered. It's like one
cigarette in a restaurant - everyone else's meal is ruined for one
jerk's seven minutes of putatuve pleasure.

I do agree it can go too far, and the Grand Canyon rules could also be
seen (rightfully) as the camel's nose in the tent. But I think it would
behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the others arrogant
for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ray]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
> the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
> person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The canyon has been made
extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
heard of people doing it in wheelchairs. Plus there's always the option
of getting to the bottom of the canyon on horseback or accessing it by boat.

While I think those who want to ban flights over the Grand Canyon (and
other parks) are being stupid, we do have to acknowledge that the
national parks are more noise sensitive than other areas - not only
because of the visitors seeking to escape the modern world but also
because of the animals in the parks. Sensible compromises should be
worked out to satisfy everyone. When I was recently hiking in the
canyon I found the level of air tours to be pretty acceptable. The
noise was sometimes a little annoying but generally not a problem. In
particular, the fixed wing twin otter's were pretty quiet, but some of
the helicopters were a little loud.

- Ray


--
***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> But I think it would
> behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the others arrogant
> for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.

whether or not it would behoove us doesn't change the arrogance
of the anit-aircraft crowd.

It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
all the sources of "unnatural sound"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

I seem to remember a Boy Scout lost and injured in a
"wilderness area" near Canada, who nearly died because they
could not get permission to use airplanes for the search and
when he was found, they couldn't bring a rescue helicopter
in to fly him out to a hospital. This was 10 years ago,
maybe a little longer.

No doubt about it, some airplanes are very quiet. You could
fly a motor-glider over the Grand Canyon with the engine off
and restart the engine away from any people and the
enviro-wackos would still complain.

I grew up on a farm with horses. I had a high power rifle
range in the pasture near the barn. The horses paid not
attention to a shot from even a .30/06 unless they were also
physically touched in some way at the sound of the shot.
Even pregnant mares had normal foal.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
>,
| Jose > wrote:
|
| > But I think it would
| > behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the
others arrogant
| > for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.
|
| whether or not it would behoove us doesn't change the
arrogance
| of the anit-aircraft crowd.
|
| It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't
recognize
| all the sources of "unnatural sound"
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-21, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I just love these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds who feel that
> areas like the Grand Canyon should be cordoned off, to only be enjoyed
> by the hyper-fit, Aryan uber-athletes among us who are actually able to
> hike down into the canyon -- and to hell with the rest of us.

While I agree with most of your sentiment, I can't let this pass. I'm
hardly a a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete (I'm none of those things) yet
I'm pretty confident I could hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
(yes, I have been there so I've got an idea on what it'd be like!)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

As a guy who has hiked out of the canyon with a 65 year old with pace
maker (11 hours), I personally know it can be done. On the other hand
a chance to see this wonder of the world from the sky would add a whole
new dimension to the Grand Canyon experience. I don't understand why
the park system can't offer a limited number of permits only to be used
on say a thursday or tuesday, or a day that is commonly a slow and low
attendance day. This way planes don't fly everyday and trips, up or
down can be scheduled to avoid the problem.
Lou

[Jay Honeck]

> As a guy who has hiked out of the canyon with a 65 year old with pace
> maker (11 hours), I personally know it can be done. On the other hand
> a chance to see this wonder of the world from the sky would add a whole
> new dimension to the Grand Canyon experience. I don't understand why
> the park system can't offer a limited number of permits only to be used
> on say a thursday or tuesday, or a day that is commonly a slow and low
> attendance day. This way planes don't fly everyday and trips, up or
> down can be scheduled to avoid the problem.

And I don't understand what the problem is. I've been part-way down
the canyon, and I saw and heard aircraft overhead. What's the big
deal?

I've also flown over the canyon (while stuck inside the VERY specific
-- and annoying -- GPS corridors and altitudes that we are now
restricted to flying in), and it was the most breath-taking experience
of my flying life. There is simply nothing else to compare it to.

The fact that a special interest group is trying to restrict our
freedoms -- again -- is what I find disgusting. Every day, it seems,
tiny, vocal minorities are capturing the ears of elected
representatives, and quietly slipping through new, more restrictive
laws. This is NOT just an aviation thing -- it's EVERYWHERE.

My point stands. Ten times more people fly over the Canyon than will
ever have the chance to hike into it. Are these people somehow less
important? Are they second-class citizens?

The overflight canyon experience should be a mandatory, "do before you
die" thing for EVERY American, and to even talk about banning it is
wrong.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
> all the sources of "unnatural sound"

Well, it does. It attacks them one at a time.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Burns]

This makes me wonder how most of the people who hike the Grand Canyon
actually GET to the Grand Canyon.

"Welcome aboard American Airlines. The Captain would like to inform all
passengers who have the Grand Canyon as part of their itinerary, that they
must deboard the aircraft at this time..... y'all like to hike so much, your
Association figures that you'd just as soon walk to Arizona.
Have a nice day."

Jim

[Doug]

The restrictions they have now are pretty liveable. You can fly over
the north part of it, and across it (in one place) above some
altititude. High jets and such aren't restricted. Its just the
helicopter and airplane tour operators that can fly low. And there
aren't that many of those. I say leave it the way it is...

If you want to fly IN a sandstone canyon there are some north of the
Grand Canyon with no restrictions, you can even land in the canyon in a
couple of places. Its really quite good!

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jay Honeck writes:

> And I don't understand what the problem is. I've been part-way down
> the canyon, and I saw and heard aircraft overhead. What's the big
> deal?

As a long time pilot that has always loved airplanes and airplane noise,
and ALWAYS looks up when I hear an airplane overhead (and who works at
Scaled and is around planes all day, every day), the big deal is that
it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
"natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.

Two weeks ago, I flew my COZY from Tehachapi out to Grand Canyon to do
some hiking. My wife and I (and some friends who flew out in a
Dutchess) hiked down the South Kaibab Trail to the Cedar Ridge stop -
about 1.5 miles into the canyon from the south rim. However much I like
airplanes (and I doubt that there's anyone out there that likes them
more than I do), it was NICE when there was no noise from ANYTHING -
cars, planes, busses, helicopters, etc. We're inundated with noise 24/7
everywhere we go - it's very pleasant to have NONE, especially when
communing with nature.

You might want to take a look at:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/overflights/

to see what's up.

Much of the noise from aircraft in the canyon is actually from
commercial airliners at 30K ft - the tour operators are another
substantial part, but not the largest part. Just moving commercial air
routes 50 miles to either side would eliminate a large portion of the
noise pollution without affecting sightseeing flights, and might be a
perfectly reasonable compromise.

I suggest that you visit Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado - it's
off the commercial air routes by 100 miles, and there's no local airport
within about 50 miles or so. If you hike 2 miles off the access road,
it's amazingly quiet - I've never heard such quiet except in an anechoic
chamber (which is hardly as interesting a place). Being able to hear
the breeze move plants 100 yards away, or hear crickets chirping
hundreds of yards away, or just listen to the blood flow through your
inner ears is a far more pleasant experience than listening to aircraft
fly overhead, however much I love aircraft.

> I've also flown over the canyon ....
> There is simply nothing else to compare it to.

I agree - it's the most breathtaking thing ever, but if I overfly the
canyon in my 4 seat COZY, I've just ruined the auditory experience of
the canyon for 1000's of hikers and sightseers on the rim. Just because
it's great for me doesn't give me the right to ruin it for many others.

> The fact that a special interest group is trying to restrict our
> freedoms -- again -- is what I find disgusting.

And the special interest groups that represent aviation are different?
What's disgusting about trying to maintain the natural ambiance of GCNP,
to the extent it's possible? Would you like to build trams down the
river, or a road, maybe, so that everyone can drive down into the
canyon? How about an amusement park at the bottom - I'm sure a lot of
folks would like that, too?

> My point stands. Ten times more people fly over the Canyon than will
> ever have the chance to hike into it. Are these people somehow less
> important? Are they second-class citizens?

First of all, you're just plain wrong. There were more people hiking
down into the canyon on the trail two Sundays ago than could ever have
fit on all the tour flights, and that doesn't count all the folks on all
the other trails, not to mention the 100 times as many people that
WEREN'T hiking down into the canyon, but were up on the rim, doing a rim
walk or rim tour. So if anything, the majority of folks at the canyon
are NOT in aircraft.

But even if your claim were true, there are things that some folks just
don't get to do - we have the technology to get disabled folks to the
top of Mt. Whitney - should we build elevators to the top? Some things
you just leave alone so that you don't ruin it by trying to make it
accessible to everyone.

> .... and to even talk about banning it is wrong.

There's the good old American "free speech" attitude - don't allow talk
about things you don't agree with. No reason to hear opposing
positions - having an open mind might actually let in information that
would disabuse you of your biases.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[RomeoMike]

I doubt that you can substantiate that statistic. Even if you could,
what about all the literally hoards of people who are scattered across
the rims of the Canyon, especially but not limited to the visitor
centers on the north and south rims, not to mention the endless
wilderness areas. One doesn't need to be a hiker to enjoy it on the
ground. I have run the river twice, visited the crowded visitors
centers, hiked some canyon trails and been to remote overlooks that
tourists aren't likely to know about. Believe it that there are far more
people on the ground and in the water than there are flying over in GA
aircraft or tour planes. Official estimates are 5 million. This doesn't
include many people like me who enter via remote access. Most of these
people don't want to listen to aircraft noise. Even I, who love flying,
don't want to listen to it when I'm there. You view these people as
"arrogant," a "vocal minority," "sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds."
Your tone suggests some of these same descriptors. They are just people
trying to enjoy the Canyon in a legitimate way, as you are trying to
enjoy it your way. As much as we don't like it, GA may be the minority
on a lot of issues these days. So please do organize GA to protest the
protests of the non-flying group of Grand Canyon visitors, but you'll
have more credibility without the attitude.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> My point stands. Ten times more people fly over the Canyon than will
> ever have the chance to hike into it. Are these people somehow less
> important? Are they second-class citizens?
>

>

[Robert M. Gary]

> The canyon has been made
> extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
> heard of people doing it in wheelchairs.

Not from Vegas. Not everyone is up to driving several days out to the
Canyon. Its a quick site seeing hop from Vegas.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Ray wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
> > the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
> > person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon.
>
> I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The canyon has been made
> extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
> heard of people doing it in wheelchairs. Plus there's always the option
> of getting to the bottom of the canyon on horseback or accessing it by boat.

True. I've seen people at the bottom who were so overweight and out of
shape that they wouldn't have been able to squeeze into a 152. It
requires some dedication and persistence to make it to the bottom, but
not a tremendous amount of fitness. I first did it myself when I was
nine years old and had my broken arm in a plaster cast. And during
those years, even without a broken arm, I was always in the bottom 5%
or 10% in everything we did in PE class at school.

You don't have to go all the way to the river to experience the canyon
-- Plateau Point, halfway down, is more accessible, less hot, and has
much better views. Most of the people who are able to walk all the way
across a shopping mall parking lot in the summer could walk to Plateau
Point if they wanted to. And most of the rest could take a mule train.

Obesity epidemic notwithstanding, the majority of Americans are healthy
enough to hike to the bottom of the canyon. It's ridiculous to suggest
that there are more air tourists than those who are ABLE to hike the
canyon, though it's true that the number who actually take the time and
effort to hike is a small fraction of those who are able to do so.

--Rich

[Skylune]

by Ray > Apr 20, 2006 at 08:33 PM



I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The canyon has been made
extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
heard of people doing it in wheelchairs. Plus there's always the option
of getting to the bottom of the canyon on horseback or accessing it by
boat.

While I think those who want to ban flights over the Grand Canyon (and
other parks) are being stupid, we do have to acknowledge that the
national parks are more noise sensitive than other areas - not only
because of the visitors seeking to escape the modern world but also
because of the animals in the parks. Sensible compromises should be
worked out to satisfy everyone. When I was recently hiking in the
canyon I found the level of air tours to be pretty acceptable. The
noise was sometimes a little annoying but generally not a problem. In
particular, the fixed wing twin otter's were pretty quiet, but some of
the helicopters were a little loud.

<<

What???? Sacrilege!!!

As has been established (by AOPA), GA noise must be accepted and even
embraced by all. What "arrogance" for a special interest (Hiking) group
to object to small plane noise. Boyer should immediately "educate" this
socially irresponsible group. If that doesn't work, he should "take them
on." He should enlist the help of Senator John McCain, who has the utmost
respect for Phil's integrity.

[Ron Lee]

>While I agree with most of your sentiment, I can't let this pass. I'm
>hardly a a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete (I'm none of those things) yet
>I'm pretty confident I could hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
>(yes, I have been there so I've got an idea on what it'd be like!)

It is coming back up that is harder.

Ron Lee

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
>> all the sources of "unnatural sound"
>
> Well, it does. It attacks them one at a time.

So when will those folks get around to trying to ban each other person
hiking, picnicking, camping, etc. next to them?

IMHO, that's what makes this fuss so annoying to me. I perfectly understand
the desire to have peace and quiet. But a popular National Park isn't the
place to find that. Places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite,
etc. are just one step away from being as bad as Disney Land. To argue that
aircraft, of all things, are what are ruining the peaceful experience is
just ridiculous.

Yes, there need to be *some* kind of regulations, as much for air safety as
for noise abatement. But to think that it makes sense to completely ban
aircraft? IMHO, the parks would be more enjoyable to me, on the ground, if
aircraft were permitted, and all the ground-based visitors (except me, of
course) were banned. The airplane noise would bug me a little, but it's all
the people right around me that I find most annoying. They are loud,
intrusive, inconsiderate, and pollute the immediate environment to a much
greater degree than any aircraft might.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

While you make some good points, especially regarding balancing rights of
individuals, this the part that doesn't make sense:

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
> "natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.
>
> [...
> First of all, you're just plain wrong. There were more people hiking down
> into the canyon on the trail two Sundays ago than could ever have fit on
> all the tour flights, and that doesn't count all the folks on all the
> other trails, not to mention the 100 times as many people that WEREN'T
> hiking down into the canyon, but were up on the rim, doing a rim walk or
> rim tour. So if anything, the majority of folks at the canyon are NOT in
> aircraft.

We are agreed that the Grand Canyon is innundated with ground-based
visitors. For some reason, we are not in agreement that those ground-based
visitors prevent one from actually experiencing "peace and quiet...in a
'natural' setting".

To me (as I mentioned in a different post), the Grand Canyon is simply not
where you go for "peace and quiet". There are certainly other attributes
that make it a worthwhile attraction, but finding natural peace and quiet
isn't one of them. Want that? Go somewhere else, somewhere that other
people are not naturally inclined to flock to (whether on foot, motor
vehicle, or aircraft).

I do believe that there are reasonable compromises that can (and do, to some
extent) balance the various interests. But to think that an entire group
should be entirely excluded, just because of the *unreasonable* expectations
of another group, is NOT reasonable.

(And, by the way, while it's clear that more people visit by land than by
air, it's not at all clear that more people care about the aircraft noise
than who want to visit by air. That vocal group is likely a small minority
of the total number of visitors).

Pete

[RomeoMike]

You are only thinking of the visitors centers, where it is not peaceful
(except in the dead of winter). But there is much more to the Canyon
than that. There are countless assessable areas where one will not
encounter another human being in a day. The sound of quiet is amazing,
particularly when combined with the view, and aircraft noise is
unwelcome. When you add up all these places, there are a lot of people
enjoying them.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> To me (as I mentioned in a different post), the Grand Canyon is simply not
> where you go for "peace and quiet".

[Peter Duniho]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> You are only thinking of the visitors centers

I am not. Crowds disrupting the natural peace and quiet can be found in
many other areas.

It is simply unreasonable to expect one to find peace and quiet in a
destination as popular as the Grand Canyon. There is no shortage of truly
peaceful and quiet places in the US where people seeking that can go.
Trying to turn the Grand Canyon into that is not reasonable.

Pete

[RomeoMike]

May be unreasonable to you, but I visit such places regularly.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> It is simply unreasonable to expect one to find peace and quiet in a
> destination as popular as the Grand Canyon.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

writes:

> As a guy who has hiked out of the canyon with a 65 year old with pace
> maker (11 hours), I personally know it can be done. On the other hand
> a chance to see this wonder of the world from the sky would add a whole
> new dimension to the Grand Canyon experience. I don't understand why
> the park system can't offer a limited number of permits only to be used
> on say a thursday or tuesday, or a day that is commonly a slow and low
> attendance day. This way planes don't fly everyday and trips, up or
> down can be scheduled to avoid the problem.

"Planes don't fly every day" eh? Think about what that does to the
businesses that own those planes. Think they can find other
destinations that will draw as many passengers the other days? So the
prices go up a lot and the business goes down and most of the
companies close up shop.

Which still may be what has to happen; I'm just pointing out that you
seem to be overlooking this issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[john smith]

Here is my take, having been to the Canyon three times in the last ten
years...

- Ban all private vehicles, as is done in Denali. Air pollution is at an
all time high in national parks such as Yellowstone, GC, Yosemite. Why
is the no-aircraft noise group not up in arms about the harmful
chemical pollution of the air in our national parks?
- The park service just opened more permits for rafters through the
canyon. Given the delicate sites on the river, permits should have
been decreased, using the logic of the no-noise supporters.
- Who is funding the anti-aircraft noise drive? Follow the money.
The outfitters and campgrounds surrounding the park, most likely.
The air charter flights are based miles away, they don't contribute to
the local economy.

[Jay Honeck]

> It is simply unreasonable to expect one to find peace and quiet in a
> destination as popular as the Grand Canyon. There is no shortage of truly
> peaceful and quiet places in the US where people seeking that can go.
> Trying to turn the Grand Canyon into that is not reasonable.

It is possible to drive ten (or 50, or 100) miles out of Iowa City, on
a beautiful late summer day, find an unused dirt road, park your car,
and walk deep into a corn field -- just like in the movie "Field of
Dreams".

You may then sit down in the blessed shade of 10-foot tall corn, open a
cold pop, and listen to the wind blowing in the tassles. For those
brief, wonderful moments, you will hear the blood pumping in your
veins, and not much else -- and you won't have to interact with anyone.


You will, in fact, be surrounded by 5000 square miles of corn, in
absolute, complete isolation.

The view isn't great, but it's wonderful, nonetheless.

But I wouldn't be so foolish as to demand that kind of auditory
experience at one of the most popular national parks in the world. How
rude!

(And what's REALLY amazing, and sooooo typical, is that overflight
opponents are trying to frame the debate, and pervert the argument, so
that anyone who opposes them looks rude!!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>> It is simply unreasonable to expect one to find peace and quiet in a
>> destination as popular as the Grand Canyon.
>
> May be unreasonable to you, but I visit such places regularly.

"Such places"? Meaning what?

You cannot find peace and quiet in a popular destination. The two are
mutually exclusive. If you find peace and quiet, then by definition you are
in a place that is not popular.

Pete

[[email protected]]

No, I wasn't overlooking this issue. As a matter of fact
this would be the issue. Keeping the price high would
cut down the number of overhead visitors. Businesses would not go out
of business
because they don't have one currently. If you didn't limit the days or
time, everybody with 41 hours would be over the canyon every minute of
every day. Make it expensive, it's expensive go by boat, With boats
there are only so many permits per year and it works.
Lou

[Jose]

> Places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite,
> etc. are just one step away from being as bad as Disney Land. To argue that
> aircraft, of all things, are what are ruining the peaceful experience is
> just ridiculous.

Perhaps at the visitor center, but you go out a ways and you can find
peace and quiet. There is a self-filtering going on - those who want to
experience peace and quiet badly enough can do so. It involves getting
away from people, and that is what the national parks are all about.

Alas, the hoi polloi don't know the difference, and stay at the
visitors' center and think they've been to Yosemite. Those that care,
hike away from the crowds and get to see the park the way nature
intended it to be expereienced. (*)

It's not meant to be easy, otherwise they'd put a freeway through it.

Jose
(*) ok, a little poetic lice... er.. certificate. :)
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

Meaning a place within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park
from which the canyon itself is visible and where you are unlikely to
encounter anyone else, and if you did encounter another person it would
be easy to move off away from him and enjoy solitude. I never said it
had to be popular in the sense of a lot of people being there. I just
said there are places in the Grand Canyon that are beautiful, quiet and
without people. Is that plain enough?

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> "Such places"? Meaning what?
>

[[email protected]]

RomeoMike wrote:
> Meaning a place within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park
> from which the canyon itself is visible and where you are unlikely to
> encounter anyone else, and if you did encounter another person it would
> be easy to move off away from him and enjoy solitude. I never said it
> had to be popular in the sense of a lot of people being there. I just
> said there are places in the Grand Canyon that are beautiful, quiet and
> without people. Is that plain enough?
>

>
> >
I can agree with your statement completely. As a Boy scout close on
to 20
years ago I hiked the Havasupai trail into the canyon several times.
AFAIK you
must obtain a permit from the Native Americans who live in th Supai
village in
the canyon. It's about an 11 mile hike and not exactly an easy one,
but if you are
looking for quiet, the need to obtain a permit restricts the number of
people hiking
this particular trail. Now, it has been a long time, but I honestly
don't remember
any offensive aircraft noise at all, but this may be due to
restrictions of overflight
of the Supai village (I'm not sure if these exist, just a thought) So
I guess the point
that I'm trying to make here is that there are places in the canyon to
get away from
all thre hustle bustle of the visitor's center type areas, you just
have to be serious
enough about it to do the research and planning necessary. And
fortunately (for those
looking for that peace and quiet) the average visitor to the canyon is
either too restriced
on their timetable or just too damn lazy to bother with all that
trouble.


Get yourself in the air no mattter how you get up there !
> >Wayne

[Jose]

> And I don't understand what the problem is. I've been part-way down
> the canyon, and I saw and heard aircraft overhead. What's the big
> deal?

"I've been in restaurants with smokers before. What's the big deal?"

> The fact that a special interest group is trying to restrict our
> freedoms...

Freedoms overlap and conflict. They are not absolute.

> The overflight canyon experience should be a mandatory, "do before you
> die" thing for EVERY American

Yanno, not everyone shares your love of being kept miles away from the
ground by nothing more than a blast of air and processed dinosaurs.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> No, I wasn't overlooking this issue. As a matter of fact
> this would be the issue. Keeping the price high would
> cut down the number of overhead visitors. Businesses would not go out
> of business
> because they don't have one currently.

??? Clearly, you've not seen the HUGE tour operators in Las Vegas,
whose main business is taking tourists on scenic flights over the
canyon.

You limit them to 2 days per week (or whatever) of flying rights, and
they won't survive. Pilots, handlers, ticket agents, etc., will be
thrown out of work, and hundreds (thousands?) of tourists will be
denied their flight of a lifetime every WEEK.

You know, in general we talk about promoting aviation on this group --
your comments seem quite out of step with this attitude.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


If you didn't limit the days or
> time, everybody with 41 hours would be over the canyon every minute of
> every day. Make it expensive, it's expensive go by boat, With boats
> there are only so many permits per year and it works.
> Lou

[Montblack]

("Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote)
> As a long time pilot that has always loved airplanes and airplane noise,
> and ALWAYS looks up when I hear an airplane overhead (and who works at
> Scaled and is around planes all day, every day), the big deal is that it's
> really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a "natural"
> setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.


You might enjoy the BWCA in Northern Minnesota.
[Boundary Waters Canoe Area]

http://www.bwcaw.org/

http://www.canoecountry.com/

http://www.boundarywaterscanoearea.com/

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_wilderness_area/mn_bound.htm

http://www.boundarywaters.com/boundary-waters.html

"The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness - BWCA, protected as a true
American wilderness, has changed little since the glaciers melted. Canoeing,
and fishing opportunities are nearly endless on the more than 2,000 lakes
and streams found within the forest. With 1,500 miles of canoe routes,
nearly 2,200 designated campsites, and more than 1,000 lakes and streams
waiting, the BWCA boast some of the country's finest fishing for walleye,
northern pike, and smallmouth bass."

http://webpages.charter.net/duluthikes/ike_bwcaw/ike_bwj.htm
BWCA's "rocky" history ...and The Izaak Walton League of America


Montblack-bears

[Jose]

> You know, in general we talk about promoting aviation on this group --
> your comments seem quite out of step with this attitude.

Aviation is not a religion.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:19:37 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

> . . .walleye, northern pike, and smallmouth bass."

Yanno, someday, there's gonna be a fish anti-defamation league and
we're all gonna havta learn the linnean nomenclature, lest the fish
find their self-esteem challenged.

Don

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> Aviation is not a religion.


Thank goodness.

If it WERE one of the world's major religions, and you gave up flying to try
your hand at, say, golf ...AOPA would then immediately sentence you to
death!

If they choose to intercede, your life might be spared at the "behest" of
the PGA. (Sounds like behead doesn't it?<g>)

Of course, to save face, AOPA will claim you are no longer
mentally/medically fit to fly, anyway.


Montblack
[My cartoon bubble has Jesus, Buddha and The Prophet Mohammad playing golf]

....Buddha say, "Don't you know a gimme when you see one?"

[Jay Honeck]

> [My cartoon bubble has Jesus, Buddha and The Prophet Mohammad playing golf]
>
> ...Buddha say, "Don't you know a gimme when you see one?"

Just don't depict Mohammed in your cartoon, if you value your life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> Perhaps at the visitor center, but you go out a ways and you can find
> peace and quiet. There is a self-filtering going on - those who want to
> experience peace and quiet badly enough can do so. It involves getting
> away from people, and that is what the national parks are all about.

It's a matter of degrees. Even at Disney Land, you can find a quiet corner.

However, by definition if you're annoyed by someone else's noise, you
haven't found a place that is unpopular and remote enough to offer
uninterrupted peace and quiet.

This includes noise from people who choose to visit the site using an
aircraft.

I don't mind some minimal regulation to try to set aside quiet areas.
However, there are already what I think are too many restrictions on flight
over the Grand Canyon, and banning aircraft outright is simply not fair. It
panders to a special-interest group, at the expense of another group's
legitimate rights.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> Meaning a place within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park
> from which the canyon itself is visible and where you are unlikely to
> encounter anyone else, and if you did encounter another person it would be
> easy to move off away from him and enjoy solitude.

But what right do you have to visit those places without interference from
anyone else? You certainly have a right to seek a place that isn't visited
by other humans, that is untainted by the noise of their activities. But
the onus is on you to find such a place. It is unfair to restrict access of
your favorites sites by others, just because you don't want to share them.

Pete

[Jose]

> It's a matter of degrees. Even at Disney Land, you can find a quiet corner.

You have a wildly different view of "quiet" than I have when I travel to
the middle of the country, pack a week's survival equipment on my back,
and walk thirty miles "thataway".

> banning aircraft outright is simply not fair. It
> panders to a special-interest group, at the expense of another group's
> legitimate rights.

Rights are not absolute.

If blorging interferes with gluping, and gluping interferes with
blorging, which one should be restricted? Why?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> But what right do you have to visit those places without interference from
> anyone else?

The right granted by the creation of the national parks in the first place.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> If blorging interferes with gluping, and gluping interferes with blorging,
> which one should be restricted? Why?

Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at
the particular site.

Peace and quiet is not unique to the Grand Canyon. The view is. Enjoyment
of the view should take priority over enjoyment of peace and quiet.

As I've already said numerous times, I'm not against moderate regulation.
But banning any user goes too far.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> But what right do you have to visit those places without interference
>> from anyone else?
>
> The right granted by the creation of the national parks in the first
> place.

Try again. The creation of the national parks is the *opposite* of that
right.

[Jose]

> Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at
> the particular site.

I never said where blorging or glupping was possible. However I'll go
with that for now.

One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in
silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your
comment above.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Try again. The creation of the national parks is the *opposite* of that
> right.

How so? The national parks are areas where development is restricted,
and people are restricted, and noise is restricted, and lots of things
are restricted, so that those who choose to put out the BTUs to enjoy
nature will have some nature to enjoy. The premise is that those people
should be able to visit without interference from, well, not "anyone
else", but from the hoi polloi of civilization.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

Still don't get it? You are so good at being argumentative and putting
words in my mouth. Did I say these areas are restricted? Did I imply
that no one else can visit these places? I have never tried to restrict
access to any of these places, how could I? Many of them are on maps
obtainable from the BLM, National Forest Service and National Park
Service. This is public land, open to anyone with the eyes to see it.
And no, none of the places I'm thinking of are on Indian lands. All
PUBLIC lands. I have the right to visit them, as does anyone else. It is
just that most don't choose to do so.

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> But what right do you have to visit those places without interference from
> anyone else? You certainly have a right to seek a place that isn't visited
> by other humans, that is untainted by the noise of their activities. But
> the onus is on you to find such a place. It is unfair to restrict access of
> your favorites sites by others, just because you don't want to share them.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in
> silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your
> comment above.

It seems as though you are in favor of being able to view the canyon from a
certain perspective; backpacking or hiking in your case.

Another way to do view the canyon is from the river, on a boat or raft.

Another is by air. You can certainly gain a perspective of the canyon by
air, that can not be achieved any other way. Eliminating viewing the grand
canyon by air is eliminating one perspective of viewing the grand canyon.

It would be just as wrong as eliminating the view from the river. Not fair,
I think.

Restrict the air routes, and altitude, and make sure there are areas that
will not be touched by the sound, but don't eliminate the wonderful
perspective that viewing the grand canyon by air provides.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> And no, none of the places I'm thinking of are on Indian lands. All
> PUBLIC lands.

"Indian" lands aren't public?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> How so? The national parks are areas where development is restricted, and
> people are restricted, and noise is restricted, and lots of things are
> restricted, so that those who choose to put out the BTUs to enjoy nature
> will have some nature to enjoy. The premise is that those people should
> be able to visit without interference from, well, not "anyone else", but
> from the hoi polloi of civilization.

As long as they continue to regulate the parks, and still allow things like
snowmobiles, there is no way you can convince me that eliminating airplanes
is a just thing to do.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

>> One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your comment above.
>
> It seems as though you are in favor of being able to view the canyon from a certain perspective; backpacking or hiking in your case.

No, I am using Peter Duniho's reply to my abstract argument to support a
POV that resembles that. However, my argument (somewhat in support of
restrictions) is not based on "permitted perspectives of viewing".
Viewing is hardly the issue - experiencing is of far more depth. The
experience for which the national parks were created (that of unspoiled
wilderness) is adversely impacted by certain activities, such as
superhighways, jetskis, boomboxes, and the like. Airplanes fit into
this category. Gliders probably do not (though their support system may).

> Restrict the air routes, and altitude, and make sure there are areas that will not be touched by the sound, but don't eliminate the wonderful perspective that viewing the grand canyon by air provides.

If this could be done, I'd be in favor. I don't know that it can't be
done, and I would love it if it could.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> As long as they continue to regulate the parks, and still allow things like snowmobiles, there is no way you can convince me that eliminating airplanes is a just thing to do.

Aren't snowmobiles restricted? You can't go anywhere in the parks with
them, can you?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> Aren't snowmobiles restricted? You can't go anywhere in the parks with
> them, can you?
>
I recall seeing a blurb on the tube about snowmobiles, and the number of
permits issued (number restricted) for snowmobiling in Yellowstone and
Teton, as I recall.

So yes, they are allowed, in at least some, national parks.
--
Jim in NC

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> You limit them to 2 days per week (or whatever) of flying rights, and
> they won't survive. Pilots, handlers, ticket agents, etc., will be
> thrown out of work, and hundreds (thousands?) of tourists will be
> denied their flight of a lifetime every WEEK.

And hundreds OF thousands of tourists/hikers/walkers/visitors will be
denied a quiet experience. Who should win? To me, as a pilot, it's not
at all obvious. Name calling and knee-jerk reactions accomplish
nothing. The fact that a few folks may lose their jobs may or may not
be a factor.

> You know, in general we talk about promoting aviation on this
> group -- your comments seem quite out of step with this attitude.

Aviation is not the be-all and end-all of existence, no matter how much
I may love it. While I promote it relentlessly, it does not take
precedence over EVERYTHING. It is acceptable for folks to believe that
in certain circumstances, it's OK to restrict flying privileges.

You have no issue with the restriction on flying over populated areas
below 500 ft, I assume? Or most of the rest of the FAR's? Why not
eliminate them, and allow pilots to do whatever they like, wherever they
like, everyone else be damned?

It's a balance, just like everything else.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Jose]

> So yes, they are allowed, in at least some, national parks.

No question they are allowed; question was are they restricted. They
are, at least as to number. They may also be, as to area.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

No, they are owned by a tribe with their own set of rules to one extent
or another.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> And no, none of the places I'm thinking of are on Indian lands. All
>> PUBLIC lands.
>
> "Indian" lands aren't public?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Jose" > wrote
>
>>
>> Aren't snowmobiles restricted? You can't go anywhere in the parks
>> with them, can you?
>>
> I recall seeing a blurb on the tube about snowmobiles, and the number of
> permits issued (number restricted) for snowmobiling in Yellowstone and
> Teton, as I recall.
>
> So yes, they are allowed, in at least some, national parks.


And where ever they are allowed you must stay on the roads that have
been closed for the winter to allow snowmobiling. You may not ever
leave the road.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> And where ever they are allowed you must stay on the roads that have been
> closed for the winter to allow snowmobiling. You may not ever leave the
> road.

From the special I saw, that must not be true, for all parks. They had
trails set up, all over the place, throughout the park.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in
> silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your
> comment above.

It's not the flying that is the activity in question. It's the viewing of
the Grand Canyon. I even said so in my post, but you decided to trim that
part from your quote (I suppose to make your own post seem like it was a
relevant reply).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> How so? The national parks are areas where development is restricted, and
> people are restricted, and noise is restricted, and lots of things are
> restricted

They are public lands, where *everyone* (every person, that is...my dog is
not welcome) is granted equal access.

>, so that those who choose to put out the BTUs to enjoy nature will have
>some nature to enjoy. The premise is that those people should be able to
>visit without interference from, well, not "anyone else", but from the hoi
>polloi of civilization.

Wrong. The national park system was designed *for* the hoi polloi of
civilization.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> Still don't get it? You are so good at being argumentative and putting
> words in my mouth. Did I say these areas are restricted?

They ARE restricted. People flying airplanes aren't permitted there.
Whether you said it is immaterial.

> Did I imply that no one else can visit these places? I have never tried to
> restrict access to any of these places, how could I?

The same way that people (apparently other than you, judging from your
reply) have already restricted access to those places.

> Many of them are on maps obtainable from the BLM, National Forest Service
> and National Park Service. This is public land, open to anyone with the
> eyes to see it.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing *against* aircraft accessing the land.
Your statement above argues *for* access by aircraft.

Or are you saying that only the people of whom you approve should be granted
full access? That is, people in airplanes don't count. Only people who
hike in are deserving of free access?

Pete

[Jay Beckman]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote)
>> As a long time pilot that has always loved airplanes and airplane noise,
>> and ALWAYS looks up when I hear an airplane overhead (and who works at
>> Scaled and is around planes all day, every day), the big deal is that
>> it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
>> "natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.
>
>
> You might enjoy the BWCA in Northern Minnesota.
> [Boundary Waters Canoe Area]
>
> http://www.bwcaw.org/
>

I did seven days/six nights in a canoe up there when I was in Boy Scouts...

Awesome experience!

Jay B

[john smith]

In article >,
"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote:

> Well, that's the nub of the gist, isn't it. Who gets to define what's
> reasonable and unreasonable? As I pilot, I certainly like flying over
> beautiful places, but as a hiker, I can't stand the noise that the
> aircraft make. I'm willing to give up flying over National Parks (or at
> least this one), so that I can have less noise. So for me, it's a
> reasonable concession. For you it isn't.

Not many live in the Mojove Desert, miles and miles of empty space.
Were it not for all those airplanes flying around, it would probably be
a very peaceful place.
And then there are those new rocket planes, with their sonic booms. :-))

[Jose]

> It's not the flying that is the activity in question. It's the viewing of
> the Grand Canyon.

No, it is the (powered) flying. Viewing the Grand Canyon from the air
(in a powered airplane) is what affects other people. It's the noise.

I doubt that there would be objections to gliders flying down the canyon
(though there may be objections to the support infrastructure).

> I even said so in my post, but you decided to trim that
> part from your quote

I disagree that it is the flying.

> (I suppose to make your own post seem like it was a relevant reply)

It's a conversation, not a conspiracy. Here's your full post:

Peter Duniho:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>> If blorging interferes with gluping, and gluping interferes with blorging,
>> which one should be restricted? Why?
>
>
> Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at
> the particular site.
>
> Peace and quiet is not unique to the Grand Canyon. The view is. Enjoyment
> of the view should take priority over enjoyment of peace and quiet.
>
> As I've already said numerous times, I'm not against moderate regulation.
> But banning any user goes too far.
>
> Pete

....and here's mine...

>> Blorging should be, because you can blorg anywhere, but you can only glup at the particular site.
>
>
> I never said where blorging or glupping was possible. However I'll go with that for now.
>
> One can fly anywhere. One can only commune with the grand canyon in silence at the grand canyon. So, flying should be restricted, by your comment above.
>
> Jose

Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one. Using
that logic, that one should be chosen no matter what the defintions of
blorging and glupping are, so long as they fit your logic. The
definitions I chose fit your logic (though not your vision).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> They are public lands, where *everyone* (every person, that is...my dog is
> not welcome) is granted equal access.

Yes, the people are welcome. Their acoutriments are restricted. This
includes boom boxes, paving machines, airplanes, and buzz saws. And
people are =not= granted complete acceses, just equal access. For some
areas you may NOT enter without a permit, and permits are limited. So,
while the access to permits may be equal, the access to the park is not.
People without permits MAY NOT enter the park (or certain areas of the
park.)

> Wrong. The national park system was designed *for* the hoi polloi of
> civilization.

Wrong. The national park system was designed to get away from the hoi
polloi, one at a time.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-21, Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>>While I agree with most of your sentiment, I can't let this pass. I'm
>>hardly a a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete (I'm none of those things) yet
>>I'm pretty confident I could hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
>>(yes, I have been there so I've got an idea on what it'd be like!)
>
> It is coming back up that is harder.

It still doesn't take a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

Last year a 79 year old man did 45 rim-to-rim (20+ miles) Grand Canyon
crossings. He plans to do 52 this year.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one.

Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

[Jose]

>>Neither Blorging nor Glupping were defined, yet you chose one.
>
> Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

It's very much not a stupid question. It is the framework by which
stupid answers are found.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

You are either dense or a troll. To everyone else, enjoy the public
lands legally as you wish. That's what I did today. Beautiful solitude,
no trolls in sight.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "RomeoMike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Still don't get it? You are so good at being argumentative and putting
>> words in my mouth. Did I say these areas are restricted?
>
> They ARE restricted. People flying airplanes aren't permitted there.
> Whether you said it is immaterial.
>
>> Did I imply that no one else can visit these places? I have never tried to
>> restrict access to any of these places, how could I?
>
> The same way that people (apparently other than you, judging from your
> reply) have already restricted access to those places.
>
>> Many of them are on maps obtainable from the BLM, National Forest Service
>> and National Park Service. This is public land, open to anyone with the
>> eyes to see it.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were arguing *against* aircraft accessing the land.
> Your statement above argues *for* access by aircraft.
>
> Or are you saying that only the people of whom you approve should be granted
> full access? That is, people in airplanes don't count. Only people who
> hike in are deserving of free access?
>
> Pete
>
>

[Ron Lee]

Jose > wrote:

>> Try again. The creation of the national parks is the *opposite* of that
>> right.
>
>How so? The national parks are areas where development is restricted,
>and people are restricted, and noise is restricted, and lots of things
>are restricted, so that those who choose to put out the BTUs to enjoy
>nature will have some nature to enjoy. The premise is that those people
>should be able to visit without interference from, well, not "anyone
>else", but from the hoi polloi of civilization.

Careful. There are not flight restrictions over many...maybe
most...of the national parks. There are VOLUNTARY guidelines on
altitude, etc but nothing stops me from flying at a safe altitude over
you at most national parks.

Ron Lee

[Morgans]

"RomeoMike" > wrote

> You are either dense or a troll.

He must be dense, then! ;-)

Pete is many things, to many people, but he is no troll.
--
Jim in NC