Grand Canyon overflight proposal

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.

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.

"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

"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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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"

"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